M E Mohammed Kureshi Vs B C Gappanna — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

M E Mohammed Kureshi Vs B C Gappanna — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference with the appellate court's conditional order; petitioner permitted to submit a demand draft for 20% of the cheque amount before the appellate court with an application seeking extension of time within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order, such application to be considered favourably by the appellate court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conditional order passed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.18/2025, requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount, ought to be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court declined to interfere with the order of the appellate court (the conditional deposit order in Crl.A.No.18/2025).

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner submits a demand draft for 20% of the cheque amount before the appellate court, along with an application seeking extension of time, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the appellate court shall take note of these observations and consider such application favourably.

Key takeaways

An opportunity was granted in the interest of justice because the right of appeal is a statutory right and the petitioner had expressed willingness to deposit the requisite sum, notwithstanding his earlier failure to adhere to the appellate court's directions.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 12659 of 2025), High Court of Karnataka, under S.482 Cr.P.C. (cause title also citing S.528 BNSS), assailing the conditional order dated 18.08.2025 in Crl.A.No.18/2025 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madikeri) whereby, pending the appeal against conviction under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an order of stay was granted subject to deposit of 20% of the cheque amount. The petitioner defaulted within the prescribed period. The Court declined to interfere with the conditional order but, regarding the right of appeal as a statutory right and noting the petitioner's expressed willingness to deposit, directed that a demand draft for 20% of the cheque amount be placed before the appellate court with an application seeking extension of time within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy, such application to be considered favourably; the petition stood disposed of with these observations and directions.

NC: 2025:KHC:38604 CRL.P No. 12659 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12659 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

M.E. MOHAMMED KURESHI S/O ISMAIL, AGED 45 YEARS INDIRANAGAR, NAPOKLU, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

B.C. GAPPANNA S/O CHENGAPPA AGED 64 YEARS NEAR PHC, NAPOKLU TOWN, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201.

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.18/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION BY

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:38604 CRL.P No. 12659 of 2025

HC-KAR

EXTENDING THE TIME TO DEPOSIT 20 PERCENT OF FINE AMOUNT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the conditional order passed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.18/2025, wherein the petitioner is called upon to deposit 20% of the cheque amount.

Though the conditional order passed by the appellate court is under challenge before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the accused is ready and willing to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. On that basis, he seeks issuance of an appropriate direction from this Court to extend the time for compliance with the condition imposed.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38604 CRL.P No. 12659 of 2025

HC-KAR

the Negotiable Instruments Act. The order of conviction was challenged in appeal and, pending disposal of the appeal, the appellate court granted an order of stay, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the cheque amount within the stipulated time. It is

true that the petitioner did not comply with the said condition within the prescribed period. There is, therefore, some laxity on the part of the petitioner in adhering to the directions of the appellate court.

Nonetheless, having regard to the fact that the right of appeal is a statutory right and that the petitioner has now expressed willingness to deposit the requisite sum, this Court is of the considered view that an opportunity may be granted, in the interest of justice, to enable the petitioner to comply with the condition imposed by the appellate court.

Accordingly, while declining to interfere with the order of the appellate court, this Court directs that if the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38604 CRL.P No. 12659 of 2025

HC-KAR

petitioner submits a demand draft for 20% of the cheque amount before the appellate court, along with an application seeking extension of time, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the appellate court shall take note of these observations and consider such application favourably, so as to secure the ends of justice.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal petition stands disposed of.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39