LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Triyambak S. Hegde v. Sripad

Criminal Appeal · 2021 INSC 529Decided 23 Sept 2021
Criminal Appeal Nos. 849-850 of 2011
Chief Justice N.V. Ramana · Justice Surya Kant · Justice A.S. Bopanna

Background

The appellant agreed to buy a house from the respondent for Rs. 4,00,000 and paid an advance of Rs. 3,50,000, but later discovered the respondent did not actually own the property and had no authority to sell it. When the appellant demanded his advance back, the respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 1,50,000 towards partial repayment, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act, and the conviction was upheld on appeal, but the Karnataka High Court, in a revision petition, accepted a new story raised for the first time, that the appellant's relative had misused influence over the respondent's lawyer to extract the signature, and acquitted him.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that since the respondent admitted his signature on both the cheque and the underlying agreement, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arose in the appellant's favour, and the burden shifted to the respondent to rebut them. It found the High Court was wrong to accept an afterthought defence raised for the first time in revision, which was never put forward during trial, in the reply to the legal notice, or in the statutory statement under Section 313 CrPC, and which was also internally implausible. The Court restored the conviction, but considering the quarter-century that had passed and that NI Act offences are not as grave as ordinary crimes, it modified the sentence to an enhanced fine of Rs. 2,50,000 (with default imprisonment) instead of maintaining the original jail term, directing most of the fine to be paid to the appellant as compensation.

Lesson Learnt

A dishonoured-cheque case carries a strong legal presumption in favour of the cheque-holder once the signature is admitted, and a defence story introduced only at a late appellate stage, without having been raised at the earliest opportunity, will rarely be believed.

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