Revision against conviction under Section 138 NI Act for a dishonoured Rs.5,00,000 cheque. Accused alleged cheque misuse and repayment of only Rs.50,000; court upheld conviction, finding defence unsupported, but reduced fine from Rs.5,05,000 to Rs.5,00,000 as compensation to 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 758 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI RANGANATH H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 64 YEARS MECHANIC, BMTC 9TH DEPOT PEENYA 2ND STAGE BANGALORE - 560 058
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESHWARI M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI R PRAKASH S/O RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 774/15 PRASANNA LAYOUT MAHADESHWARA MAIN ROAD VISHWANEEDAM POST BANGALORE - 560 091
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NANJAPPA B N.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2020 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) BANGALORE CRL.A.NO.595/2018 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.22181/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:49598 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt.Rajeshwari M, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Nanjappa B.N., learned counsel for the respondent.
3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. with the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act by contending that accused approached the complainant for a hand loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 30.08.2014 for the purposes of improvement of his brother business. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant lent sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with a promise that accused would repay the same after selling the land and property at Sira Town. Despite repeated demands, the accused failed to repay the same.
3.2. Ultimately, towards repayment of the debt, he
issued a cheque bearing No.590123 dated 02.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque on presentation, came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.
3.3. Thereafter, legal notice was issued. Though
legal notice is served, there was no reply nor compliance
NC: 2024:KHC:49598 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2021
to the callings of the legal notice resulting in complainant
seeking action against the accused.
yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the version of the complainant or not to dislodge the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act.
the parties, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties in detail and after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and imposed a fine of Rs.5,05,000/- of which Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State as aforesaid.
cheque in question was misused by the complainant by filling it up in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, whereas the actual due by the accused to the complainant was only in a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was also repaid to the brother of the complainant.
According to the accused, he has borrowed only a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was repaid to the brother of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant failed to return the cheque to the accused and misused the same by filing it up in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is no lending capacity to the complainant to lend a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, the order of the trial Magistrate is incorrect.
vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in (2019) 18 SCC 106 .
evidence on record namely, the statement of account of the complainant in Muthoot Finance and copy of the Sale Deed.
jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter in annulling the well reasoned judgments of both the Courts recording an order of conviction against the accused.
the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the learned Trial Magistrate has imposed Rs.5,05,000/- as the fine amount with default sentence.
NC: 2024:KHC:49598 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2021
26. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, fine amount awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is reduced to sum of Rs.5,00,000/from Rs.5,05,000/-.
iii. Entire sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant on or before 31.12.2024, failing which, order of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate gets restored automatically.
iv. Fine amount in a sum of Rs.5,000/awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards
NC: 2024:KHC:49598 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2021
defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside.
In view of disposal of the main petition, all pending
IAs would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the
same are consigned to records.
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
HA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused's claim that the complainant misused a signed cheque for Rs.5,00,000 when only Rs.50,000 was due could rebut the Section 139 presumption.
Whether the fine imposed exceeded the cheque amount and required revisional interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. The State of Gujarat and AnotherReferred¶18
(2019) 18 SCC 106 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI RANGANATH H
SRI R PRAKASH
V SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
