Hemalatha Niranjan Vs M a Shanmuka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Hemalatha Niranjan Vs M a Shanmuka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Magistrate erred in passing the judgment of acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Court's answer

The point framed for consideration is answered in the negative: the learned Magistrate did not err in passing the judgment of acquittal of the respondent-accused.

Ratio / Principle

One of the conditions for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is that the cheque should be presented to the Bank within the period of its validity.

Key takeaways

In the case on hand the cheque was not presented to the Bank within its period of validity and was therefore returned with the reason “Stale”; the “Stale” endorsement itself indicates presentation beyond the validity period.ratio¶41
The cheque was not dishonoured for want of funds.ratio¶41
The appellant's contention that the cheque had earlier been presented twice and dishonoured for want of funds cannot be accepted, since a cheque can be presented any number of times till its validity.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 220 of 2019) under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.12.2018 passed by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.16423/2017, acquitting the respondent-accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Facts: the complainant lent Rs.4,00,000/- as hand loan on 04.01.2015; in discharge the accused issued cheque No.709159 dated 04.02.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Tirumale, Magadi Taluk; on presentation the cheque was returned under memo dated 06.05.2017 (Ex.P2) by HDFC Bank with the endorsement “Stale”; legal notice dated 18.05.2017 was returned unserved. Held (single judge, Shivashankar Amaranannavar, J.): presentation of the cheque to the Bank within its period of validity is a condition for the Section 138 offence; the “Stale” return shows the cheque was presented beyond its validity and was not dishonoured for want of funds; a cheque may be presented any number of times till its validity, so the earlier dishonours relied on by the appellant were immaterial; consequently the Section 138 offence was not attracted and the Magistrate's acquittal was correct. No reasons to interfere; the appeal was dismissed in its entirety (decided 09.01.2025).

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 220 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

HEMALATHA NIRANJAN W/O NIRANJAN Y C AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT No.106, TIRUMALA ELTIE 80 FEET ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE AREKERE, BTM 6^TH STAGE BENGALURU – 560 076.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

M A SHANMUKA S/O LATE APPAJAPPA MADIHALLI VILLAGE, MOKALI POST ARUKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 216.

AND ALSO WORKING AT

M.A.SHANMUKHA (POLITICAL SCIENCE LECTURE) GOVERNMENT COLLEGE BACHENAHATTI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT- 562 120.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI RAVINSON M, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 11.12.2018, PASSED BY THE XIX A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE IN C.C.No.16423/2017, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I ACT AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 11.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.16423/2017 by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, whereunder the respondent -accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act” for brevity).

The brief facts of complainant’s case is that the respondent –accused approached the complainant for hand loan and she lent money of Rs.4,00,000/- to accused on 04.01.2015. The accused in order to discharge the said

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019

loan has issued cheque bearing No.709159 dated 04.02.2017 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Tirumale, Magadi Taluk in favour of complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment and the said cheque came to be returned by Bank with endorsement “Stale”. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 18.05.2017 and same came to be returned with shara that “not claimed” and notice sent to another address has been returned as “the accused out of station”. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint.

Learned Magistrate took cognizance and registered case against the respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act in C.C.No.16423/2017. The plea came to be recorded. The complainant has examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P13. The statement of accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent –accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 and D2. Learned Magistrate

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019

after hearing on both sides has formulated points for consideration and passed impugned judgment of acquittal. The said judgment of acquittal has been challenged in this appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the complainant has presented the cheque earlier for two times and it came to be dishounoured. He submits that when cheque came to be presented at third time it returned with reason “Stale”. He submits that the said endorsement amounts to dishonour of cheque and attracts offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. With this, he prays to allow the appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that cheque has been dishonoured for reason “Stale” and itself indicate that the cheque has not been presented within the period of its validity. The cheque has not been dishonoured for want of funds and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019

attracted. One of the condition for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is that cheque should be presented to the Bank for encashment within the period of its validity. Considering the said aspect, learned Magistrate has rightly passed impugned judgment of acquittal. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard learned counsels, the point arises

for my consideration is

“Whether learned Magistrate has erred in passing the judgment of acquittal of respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.”?

My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons.

The cheque is at Ex.P1 and it is dated 04.02.2017. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment and the said cheque came to be returned under memo dated 06.05.2017 (Ex.P2) by HDFC Bank with reason “Stale”. The said endorsement itself indicates

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019

that the cheque has not been presented for encashment within the period of its validity. One of the conditions for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is that the cheque should be present to the Bank within the period of its validity. In the case on hand the cheque has not been presented to the Bank within a period of its validity and therefore, it has been returned with reason “Stale”. The said cheque has not been dishonoured for want of funds. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that earlier the complainant has presented the cheque for two times and it came to be dishonoured for want of funds cannot be accepted as cheque can be presented any number of times till its validity. The complainant has presented the cheque before the Bank after its validity and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not attracted. Considering the said aspect, learned Magistrate has rightly held that offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act is not attracted and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal.

NC: 2025:KHC:677 CRL.A No. 220 of 2019

7 -

There are no reasons to interfere in the well

reasoned order passed by learned Magistrate.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10