Partly allowed

S.Chandrashekhar v. B.Mohan Murali S/O B Gurappa

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2025CRL.RP/100213/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against a conviction for cheque bounce. While upholding the guilty verdict and modifying the compensation to the full disputed amount, the court nullified a separate fine component intended for State expenses.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of accused maintained; fine portion for State expenses (Rs. 5,000) set aside; total penalty reduced to Rs. 15,45,000 payable as compensation.

S.Chandrashekhar Vs B.Mohan Murali S/O B Gurappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100213 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S. CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶10

S/O. LATE T. SETHURAMALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. RETD. HEAD MASTER, R/O. VICKY’S SCHOOL COMPOUND, VIDYANAGAR KOLAGAL ROAD, BALLARI-583101.

¶11

SMT.VANAJA CHANDRASHEKHAR W/O. S.CHANDRASHEKHAR,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. RETD. TEACHER, R/O. VICKY’S SCHOOL COMPOUND, VIDYANAGAR, KOLAGAL ROAD, BALLARI-583101.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

B.MOHAN MURALI S/O. B.GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN, R/O. H.NO.7, MIG-2, KHB COLONY, NETHAJI NAGAR, CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583104.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), BALLARI IN CRL. APPEAL NO.4/2022 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI IN C.C.NO.508/2017 DATED 07.12.2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶26

Heard Sri Lingesh V. kattimane, learned counsel for

¶27

revision petitioners and Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent.

¶28

This revision petition is filed by the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’) in C.C.No.508/2017 by considered judgment dated 07.12.2021 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.04/2022.

¶29

Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶30

A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of

¶31

the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) with

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶34

the jurisdictional magistrate alleging the commission offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act., by contending that accused persons were acquainted with the complainant for last 20 years; in the said acquaintance, they approached the complainant seeking financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for clearance of debts. Earlier to the said transaction, they have borrowed a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- on different occasions, totally they have borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from complainant.

¶35

Towards the repayment, accused persons issued a joint cheque bearing No.425326 dated 14.01.2017 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Vasavi School Branch, Ballari and requested the complainant to present after two months.

¶36

Likewise, the complainant presented the cheque on 10.04.2017, which came to be dishonored with an endorsement “funds insufficient”.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶38

A legal notice was issued to the complainant on 25.04.2017 calling upon repayment of the amount covered under the cheque.

¶39

Though legal notice is duly served, accused

¶40

persons did not comply with the callings of notice and sent an untenable reply on 17.05.2017. Therefore, the complainant sought action against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶41

Learned trial magistrate after completing necessary formalities, summoned the accused persons and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

¶42

In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed record 11 documents, which were exhibited and marked as EX.P.1 to P.11 comprising of dishonored cheque, signature

¶43

of accused persons, bank endorsement, postal receipts, postal acknowledgment, reply notice, additional loan

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶45

agreement, income tax return of the complainant, Indenture receipt etc.

¶46

On conclusion of recording of complainant evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein accused

¶47

persons have denied their liability under the cheque and in respect of their contention, both the accused persons got examined themselves as DW-1 and DW-2 and placed on record a complaint said to have been lodged by them against the complainant dated 27.10.2021, which was marked as Ex.D.1.

¶48

On conclusion of recording of evidence of both the sides, learned trial magistrate heard the arguments of parties in detail and considered judgment dated 07.12.2021 convicted accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, and imposed fine of Rs.15,50,000/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.15,00,000/- of which sum of Rs.15,45,000/- was ordered to be compensation and the balance sum of

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶50

Rs.5,000/is ordered to be appropriated towards

¶51

defraying expenses of the State.

¶52

Being aggrieved by the same, accused persons preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.04/2022.

¶53

Learned judge in the first appellate Court after securing records, heard arguments of the parties in detail and re-appreciation of material available on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 19.03.2022.

¶54

Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this court.

¶55

Sri.Lingesh Kattemane, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the courts have not properly appreciated the materials available on record, especially the probative value of the Ex.D.1, where under accused persons have filed complaint

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶58

against the complainant and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶59

He also pointed that the materials available on record is hardly sufficient to prove the lending capacity of the complainant in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore, there is a misuse of the blank cheque issued by the accused persons and said aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment; which was mechanically approved by the learned judge in the first appellate court resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing of the revision petition.

¶60

Per contra, Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent-complainant supports the impugned judgment by contending that the complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act and noticing the said presumption, though the accused persons got themselves examined as DW.1 and DW-2 before the trial magistrate to rebut the presumption.

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶62

But their evidence especially the answers

¶63

elicited in the cross examination would go to show that no prudent person would allow the cheque to be misused and effect of Ex.D-1 has been taken note and no further action has been taken in pursuant to the Ex.D-1 and it shows that Ex.D.1 is an afterthought only with an intention to escape away from the rigors of law and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶64

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶65

On such perusal of the material on record, Ex.P.1-cheque issued by accused persons and signed by both of them being the joint account holders is not in dispute. Cheque came to be dishonored with an endorsement “funds insufficient”.

¶66

Legal notice is duly served and in the reply notice, accused persons have admitted that they have issued the cheque in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and if 30

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶69

days time is granted, they would pay the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque.

¶70

In view of such admission, all ingredients are required to establish the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act stands established with the aid of the presumption

¶71

available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.

¶72

The rebuttal evidence placed on record did not advance the case of the accused persons any further insofar as Ex.D.1 is concerned and the same is not brought to logical end.

¶73

Accordingly, learned trial judge and learned judge in the first appellate Court recording the order of conviction against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is just and proper and requires no interference that too under the revisional jurisdiction.

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶76

Having said thus, the learned trial judge imposing the fine of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State, out of the fine amount of Rs.15,50,000/- is totally unwarranted as lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. To that extent impugned order needs interference.

¶77

In view of the forgoing discussions, following :

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

¶80

(ii) While maintaining conviction of the accused/revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, sentence ordered by the trial magistrate confirmed by the first appellate Court in imposing fine Rs.15,50,000/- is reduced to Rs.15,45,000/-.

¶81

(iii) Entire sum of Rs.15,45,000/- is to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Failing which, the imprisonment ordered by learned trial magistrate shall be undergone by accused/revision petitioners.

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4273 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2022

¶84

(iv) Sum of Rs.5,000/imposed by the trial magistrate as defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside.

¶85

(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records along with copy of this order.

¶86

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶87

AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 13

S.Chandrashekhar v. B.Mohan Murali S/O B Gurappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chandrashekhar v. B.Mohan Murali S/O B Gurappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Laxmikant S/O Hanamantrao Deshapande Vs Sri Patreppa S/O Hanamant Murgod

Shivanand S/O Basappa Dyavanur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pushpa W/O. Basavaraj Alias Basappa Olekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Aliyas Bhayjan S/O Navalsingh Sengar Vs the State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O. Subhash Munavalli, Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayanaik S/O Muniya Naik Vs the State of Karnataka