Conviction under Section 138 NI Act for a dishonoured cheque towards part repayment of a loan was challenged in revision. The court upheld conviction, holding presumption under Section 139 unrebutted, but modified sentence directing the entire fine amount as compensation to the complainant.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44733 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 465 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
B.V.NATARAJA S/O B.VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.57/58, GROUND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, A SECTOR, AMRUTHA NAGAR, SHANKARA NAGARA POST, BENGALURU-560092.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHETANA L.N., S/O NIRANJANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT SAVALANGA VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577225.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI D.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2022 IN CRL.A.NO.76/2021, PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2021 IN C.C.NO.2449/2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIVAMOGGA AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE REVISION.
NC: 2024:KHC:44733 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022
THIS CRL.RP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Santhosh Kumar M.B., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri D.Gangadhara, learned counsel for respondent.
9,00,000/-, out of which, an amount of 8,90,000/- to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance amount of `10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State, confirmed in Crl.A. No.76/2021, has filed the present revision petition.NC: 2024:KHC:44733 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022
A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act contending that the complainant is having stock commodities and the accused to obtain financial assistance from the complainant and he raised a loan of `25,00,000/- for investing the said amount in the business carried on by the accused in the name and style of M/s.Marigudi Agriventure. The loan amount was paid through the bank transaction and accused failed to re-pay the same. Ultimately, the accused passed on a cheque towards part repayment which on presentation, came to be dishonoured. Legal notice was issued, calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque. As there are no compliance of the notice, complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the accused.
necessary formalities, summoned the accused and
recorded the plea. The accused pleaded not guilty, therefore, the trial was held.
of the complainant not to dislodge the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial Magistrate, wherein the accused has denied all the
incriminating materials/circumstances. Accused did not chose to place any written submission on record as is contemplated under Section 313 (4) of Cr.P.C. nor placed any defence evidence on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:44733 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022
convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.
i. Whether the revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from patent factual or legal error or error of jurisdiction so as to term the impugned judgment as perverse in nature calling for interference by this Court in this revision petition?
ii. Whether the sentence is excessive?
iii. What order?
Re: point No.(i):
NC: 2024:KHC:44733 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022
Legal notice issued by the complainant is not even replied by the accused. A close reading of cross examination goes to show that the complainant has issued the cheque in question. No contra evidence is placed on record by the accused.
NC: 2024:KHC:44733 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022
Re: Point No.(ii):
9,00,000/-, the learned Trial Judge has imposed only 9,00,000/- as the fine amount and out of which, a sum of 8,90,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance amount of 10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State.10,000/- to be paid as fine towards defraying expenses of the State is totally uncalled for. Therefore, the entire amount of 9,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation toNC: 2024:KHC:44733 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022
the complainant as the cheque amount. Accordingly, point
No.(ii) is answered partly in favour of the complainant.
Re: Point No.(iii):
ORDER
a) Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
b) Amount of compensation awarded by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of 9,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant by setting aside imposing of fine of 10,000/towards the defraying expenses of the State.
c) Balance amount to be paid by the revision petitioner on or before 10.12.2024, failing which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the trial Magistrate.
NC: 2024:KHC:44733 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
BS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 104
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act suffered from patent factual or legal error warranting interference in revision?
Whether the sentence of fine and compensation was excessive?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay SinghApplied¶18
(2023) 10 SCC 148 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
B.V.NATARAJA S/O B.VEERABHADRAPPA
CHETANA L.N., S/O NIRANJANA MURTHY
V SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court