LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 790Decided 4 Aug 2026
Crl.A. No.-003654-003654 - 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2247 of 2024)
Justice B.V. Nagarathna · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The complainant had given the accused a hand loan of Rs. 4,50,000 in December 2010 to buy a house site, to be repaid within a year with 16% interest. The accused issued a cheque for the amount in 2013, which bounced for insufficient funds, and after a demand notice went unanswered, the complainant filed a Section 138 NI Act complaint. Both the trial court and the sessions court (in appeal) convicted the accused, but the Karnataka High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, went into the merits of the evidence afresh and acquitted him, chiefly reasoning that the complainant had not adequately shown his financial capacity to advance such a large, interest-free-sounding loan.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding first on the merits that the complainant had in fact discharged his burden: two witnesses corroborated that they had lent him money which he then advanced to the accused, the accused's signature on the cheque was admitted (triggering the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that it was issued to discharge a liability), and the accused had failed to raise or prove any defence of financial incapacity, either in his reply to the demand notice or through evidence at trial. More fundamentally, the Court held that the High Court had exceeded the scope of its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view for the concurrent factual findings of two courts below, contrary to settled law that revisional courts may interfere only where there is perversity, gross error, or a glaring miscarriage of justice: none of which the High Court had identified. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court and sessions court judgments.

Lesson Learnt

A High Court's revisional jurisdiction over a criminal conviction is narrow and supervisory, not a second appeal. It cannot re-weigh evidence and overturn concurrent findings of guilt unless there is a clear, glaring error or perversity on the record; and in cheque-bounce cases, once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused to actively disprove the presumed underlying debt, not merely raise doubts about it.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case