High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the conviction under Section 138 NI Act regarding a dishonoured cheque, holding no error in evidence appreciation.
Revision petition dismissed; amount in deposit released to respondent; petitioner granted two months to pay balance amount; sentence to be executed if not paid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 188 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.L. NARAYANA S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHAIAH 52 YEARS, R/O K. HOSAHALLI KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUKR DISTRICT - 572130. (BY SRI. JAIRAJ.G, ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE B. CHALUVAIAH 62 YEARS, R/AT SIRIVARA HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101.
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHANTESH T.S, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TUMKURU IN C.C.NO.4614/2016 ORDER DATED 26.07.2021 AND ALSO JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, IN CRL.A.NO.28/2021 DATED 07.12.2021 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the concurrent judgment of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and the order sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- failing which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and prayed that he be tried. The respondent was examined as PW-1 and she marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of CR.PC was recorded. He thereafter led his defence evidence as DW-1 and marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. Based on oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the petitioner had issued the cheque in question for the discharge of a lawful debt and therefore held that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. In view of the dishonour of the cheque due to insufficient funds, if convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
petitioner which was misused by the respondent. He contended that the daughter of the respondent had filed OS.No.141/2012 for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the same was decreed. He therefore contended that the respondent has misused the cheque in question to lay an unlawful claim.
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no material irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted or in appreciation of the evidence of the application of law to the facts and circumstances of this case, warranting interference by this Court under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.PC.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Any amount in deposit is ordered to be released to the respondent. The petitioner is granted two months time to pay the balance amount, failing which, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court shall be executed.
Sd/JUDGE
PK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition against the conviction for cheque dishonour deserves interference.
Whether the trial and appellate courts committed any material irregularity in appreciating the evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. H.L. NARAYANA S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHAIAH
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE B. CHALUVAIAH
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
