The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging convictions for cheque dishonour. The court held the accused failed to prove his defence regarding the loan amount, upholding the statutory presumption.
Revision petition dismissed; accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act upheld.
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. 475 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 475 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
CHIKKAPUTTI @ PAILWAN CHIKKAPUTTI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O. LATE KAPANAIAH, R/AT NO.2558, 4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, ONTIKOPPAL, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 002.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. K.N. SHRIKANTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE NAGARAJE GOWDA, R/AT NO.100, 5TH MAIN, YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE-570 020.
(BY SMT. P. VARALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.6.2014 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRL.A.NO.275/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 05.08.2013 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSORE IN C.C.NO.569/2011 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS R.P.
CRL.RP No. 475 of 2014
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2013 passed by the IV Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.569/2011 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.8,30,000/-. The petitioner has also called in question the judgment dated 10.06.2014 passed by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.275/2013 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
complainant claimed that the accused had requested for a hand loan from time to time amounting to a sum of Rs.10,20,000/of which a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- was repaid by the accused and
he promised to pay the balance amount at the earliest. However despite demands by the complainant, the accused dodged the payment and finally issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards discharge of the debt. However, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The complainant therefore, caused a notice of demand, which was served on the accused. The accused neither replied nor paid the amount, which prompted the complainant to initiate action to prosecute the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
CRL.RP No. 475 of 2014
CRL.RP No. 475 of 2014
record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
respondent/complainant submitted that though the notice of demand was issued to the accused, he did not respond and deny the transaction. On the contrary, he lodged a complaint before the concerned authorities accusing the complainant of indulging in money lending and that a notice in that regard was issued to the complainant. She therefore, submits that the accused accepted the transaction between him and the complainant. He drew the attention of the Court to Ex.P7, where the accused had acknowledged on 01.05.2010 that he used to raise loan from the year 2002 and onwards. She therefore, submitted that the evidence of PW.1 that the accused was raising the loan from the year 2002 to 2008 is probable and that the cheque in question was drawn by the accused towards discharge of amount payable to the complainant. She further submitted that since the accused admitted his signature on the cheque in question and that the cheque was drawn from his account, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were justified in drawing presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She further submits that the accused did not come with any defence
CRL.RP No. 475 of 2014
to rebut the presumption and the one raised before the Trial Court was not probable.
CRL.RP No. 475 of 2014
signature of the accused, which disclosed that the accused was raising loan from the complainant from the year 2002 till the year 2010 and that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the complainant towards interest dues. The documents on record therefore clearly indicated a subsisting transaction between the complainant and the accused and that the cheque in question was drawn by the accused concerning with the transaction. Having regard to the fact that a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be dealt summarily, the evidence on record established that there was a transaction between the complainant and accused and that the cheque in question was drawn towards discharge of loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court are therefore, justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in view of the dishonour of the cheque drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. There is no error warranting interference by this Court in revision petition.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed .
CRL.RP No. 475 of 2014
Any amount in deposit before this Court/Trial
Court/Appellate Court shall be released in favour of the respondent/complainant.
The Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court
as well as the Appellate Court records.
Sd/JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
CHIKKAPUTTI @ PAILWAN CHIKKAPUTTI
DR. K.N. SHRIKANTEGOWDA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
