Karnataka High Court Upholds Conviction of Former BJP MLA in Cheque-Bounce Cases
In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court has delivered a decisive blow to former BJP MLA MP Kumaraswamy, refusing to interfere with his conviction in eight cheque-bounce cases. The court's ruling reinforces the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it cannot overturn concurrent factual findings established by lower courts.
Court's Firm Stance on Revisional Jurisdiction
Justice M Nagaprasanna, in a detailed order, cited Supreme Court precedents to underscore that the high court, in its revisional capacity, is barred from re-analyzing or reinterpreting evidence. The judge explicitly stated, "The Supreme Court holds that during the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the high court cannot set aside concurrent factual findings." He further clarified that the role of a revisional court is strictly confined to correcting patent defects or jurisdictional errors, as outlined in cases like Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa.
Justice Nagaprasanna added, "This court cannot sit in appeal over both the orders in revisional jurisdiction and obliterate the crime. The law is clearly goaded against the petitioner." Consequently, all eight petitions filed by Kumaraswamy were dismissed, solidifying the legal proceedings against him.
Background of the Case and Lower Court Orders
The legal saga began on February 13, 2023, when a special court in Chikkamagaluru convicted MP Kumaraswamy, who previously represented the Mudigere constituency. The court found him guilty in eight separate cheque-bounce cases and ordered him to pay a total of Rs 135.9 lakh to the complainant, HP Huvappa Gowda, an agriculturalist from the same district. Failure to comply would result in six months of simple imprisonment for each case.
On July 19, 2023, the sessions court upheld this conviction, prompting Kumaraswamy to escalate the matter to the high court. In his appeal, he challenged both lower court orders, arguing that Huvappa Gowda, as a holder of a Below Poverty Line (BPL) card, lacked the financial capacity to lend such a substantial amount. Kumaraswamy contended that the cheques were issued for collateral purposes and were subsequently misused by the complainant.
Complainant's Response and Court's Decision
In response, Huvappa Gowda presented a counter-argument, asserting that the BPL card was obtained by his wife without his knowledge and had been cancelled well before the transactions in question occurred. This rebuttal aimed to undermine Kumaraswamy's claims regarding the complainant's financial status.
The high court, after reviewing the arguments and evidence, sided with the lower courts' findings. The dismissal of the petitions marks a critical juncture in this legal battle, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to upholding established facts and preventing abuse of revisional powers. This case serves as a reminder of the stringent legal framework governing cheque-bounce offenses in India.
