Dismissed¶67

Sri G T Ranganatha Sharma v. Sri K Munirathnam Reddy

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025CRL.RP/112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:53069); Justice Ravi V Hosmani; CRL.RP No.112 of 2024; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act conviction upheld; cheque no.207052 for Rs.15,00,000/- dishonoured; complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.; Sections 311 and 313 Cr.P.C.; recall of PW.1 refused at arguments stage; sufficient opportunity granted but not utilized; abuse of process; no perversity in concurrent findings; revision dismissed with Rs.50,000/- costs to complainant.

What did the court decide?

Sufficient opportunity was granted to the accused but not utilized; filing of the application for recall of PW.1, at the stage of argument, was an apparent abuse of process, and therefore the Trial Court's rejection of the application was justified. ¶60

Sri G T Ranganatha Sharma Vs Sri K Munirathnam Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/petitioner was denied adequate opportunity to cross-examine PW.1, such as would justify interference with the concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (sole ground urged in revision). +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

¶60

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any challenge regarding infraction of the Section 138 timelines, the Trial Court rightly accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant, corroborated by the cheque (Ex.P1), bank endorsements, demand notice and construction agreement (Ex.P11) consistent with pleadings and deposition, and passed the impugned judgment.

¶66

Key takeaways

Both Courts, on examination of the entire material on record, arrived at reasoned conclusions free of perversity, and the Appellate Court affirmed the conclusion on re-appreciation; hence the impugned judgments did not call for interference.ratio¶66
The accused has, without justification, sought to dilate the proceedings; consequently the revision petition is dismissed with costs.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRL.RP No.112/2024, High Court of Karnataka, Ravi V Hosmani J.) against concurrent judgments convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — sole ground urged: denial of opportunity to cross-examine PW.1/complainant. Order sheet showed sworn statement recorded 08.12.2017 with Exs.P1–P11, plea 03.07.2018, first recall application allowed, cross-examination taken 'nil' on multiple dates, NBW recalled, Section 313 statement recorded 20.11.2019, and two Section 311 Cr.P.C. applications allowed on costs (03.01.2020, 11.02.2020) without cross-examination being conducted. A further recall application at the arguments stage, after eight Covid-period adjournments, was rejected as an apparent abuse of process — sufficient opportunity had been granted but not utilized, and the Trial Court's rejection was justified. Conviction rested on uncontroverted complainant's evidence (cheque Ex.P1, endorsements, demand notice, construction agreement Ex.P11) with no challenge to Section 138 timelines; both courts reached reasoned, non-perverse conclusions and the Appellate Court (Criminal Appeal No.728/2021, decided 14.07.2023) affirmed. Revision petition dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- payable to respondent/complainant within four weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 112 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G.T. RANGANATHA SHARMA, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT MELINA GOLGODU, KHANDIKA SGARA (T), SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401

¶9

ALSO AT C/O AARATHI ENTERPRISES MARKET ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

C/O ARATHI ENTERPRISES NO. 61, 2ND CROSS CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶13

(BY SMT. SUDHA G, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. K. MUNIRATHNAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 41, "RENUKA NILAYA", GROUND FLOOR, 7TH 'B' CROSS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MUTHYALANAGARA BANDEPPA GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED 12TH ADDL.C.M.M COURT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.29703/2017 DATED 01.09.2021.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Challenging concurrent judgments dated 01.09.2021

¶28

passed in CC.No.29703/2017 by the Court of XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and dated 14.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.728/2021 by the Court of the XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH65), Bengaluru, this revision petition is filed.

¶29

Smt Sudha G, learned counsel appearing for Sri.A M Balaji, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that present proceedings arise out of private complaint

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

filed by respondent/complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that complainant was a civil contractor and accused had approached him for construction of a building at Kempapura Agrahara, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru in site bearing no.6 belonging to one Sri S R Hegde as per joint development agreement. Accused and complainant had entered into construction agreement on 30.08.2016. Complainant had constructed upto first floor by investing more than Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three lakhs only), but accused has paid only Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). Accused had assured complainant of payment and coaxed him for construction. Due to non-payment, construction was stopped and complainant had requested for payment of Rs.18,00,000/(Rupees Eighteen lakhs only). On 22.08.2017, accused issued cheque no.207052 for sum of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, Sagara Branch which when presented, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 24.08.2017.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Thereafter, complainant intimated same to accused, he asked complainant to re-present cheque and therefore, cheque was re-presented on 26.09.2017 and dishonoured with same endorsement on 27.09.2017. Thereafter, demand notice dated 19.10.2017 was got issued by complainant. However, same returned with postal shara 'no such person'. Since accused failed to repay amount within time, offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was committed.

¶37

On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Therefore, complainant entered witness box as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P11. It was submitted that thereafter, matter was listed for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On appraisal of incriminating material which was denied, his statement was recorded. Thereafter, matter was set for defence evidence. At that stage, Covid 19 pandemic struck and an application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling of PW.1 for cross examination. Same

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

was rejected and without providing opportunity, impugned judgment came to be passed convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. Even appeal filed therein against them was dismissed without proper consideration of facts

¶41

and circumstances of case as well as application for recalling of PW.1 for cross examination which was filed, but rejected.

¶42

Under above circumstances, impugned

¶43

judgments suffered from illegality insofar as denial of adequate opportunity to accused. On said grounds, sought for allowing revision.

¶44

On other hand, Sri S R Hegde, learned counsel for respondent opposes petition. It was submitted that prior to rejection of application for recalling of PW.1, trial Court had allowed similar applications twice on costs. Yet opportunity was not utilized and therefore, impugned

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

judgment by Trial Court was justified and did not call for interference.

¶48

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments.

¶49

This revision petition is by accused assailing concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Sole ground urged is denial of opportunity to accused to cross-examine PW.1.

¶50

Perusal of order sheet of trial Court would indicate that sworn statement of complainant was recorded on 08.12.2017. Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked. Thereafter, matter was adjourned on umpteen number of dates to secure presence of accused.

¶51

On 03.07.2018, plea was recorded and since

¶52

sworn statement was treated as examination-in-chief, an application was filed by accused for recalling of PW.1 for

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

cross-examination and same was allowed. Thereafter on

¶56

18.01.2019, 18.02.2019, 21.02.2019, 22.02.2019, 13.03.2019, 20.03.2019 and 02.04.2019, matter was adjourned. On 23.04.2019, cross of PW.1 was taken as 'nil' and due to absence of accused, NBW was issued. On 06.05.2019, 06.06.2019, 23.07.2019, 22.08.2019, 23.09.2019, matter was adjourned. On 08.11.2019, order of issuance of NBW was recalled and on 20.11.2019, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Again the matter was adjourned on 03.12.2019, 11.12.2019 and 30.12.2019. On 03.01.2020, application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of PW.1 was allowed on cost. Thereafter, once again matter was adjourned on 04.01.2020 and on 20.01.2020 crossexamination of PW.1 was taken as 'nil'. On 11.02.2020, yet another application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was allowed on heavier cost. But there was no crossexamination. Therefore, on 10.03.2020, cross of PW.1 was taken as 'nil' and matter was posted for argument.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Though thereafter, there was prevalence of Covid 19 pandemic and SOP was in force, matter was adjourned on eight (8) occasions for argument. On eighth instance, third application for recalling of PW.1 was filed. After rejecting same by reasoned order, matter was proceeded with and impugned judgment came to be passed. Main reason for rejection of application was that sufficient opportunity was provided but not utilized.

¶60

Above narration would leave no doubt in my mind that sufficient opportunity was granted but not utilized and filing of application for recall of PW.1, that too at stage of argument, was apparent abuse of process. Therefore, rejection of application by Trial Court was justified.

¶61

Insofar as impugned judgment, it is seen that trial Court took note of assertions of complainant about transaction between accused and complainant supported by his deposition and marking of cheque in question as

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Ex.P1, bank endorsements, demand notice, postal acknowledgment as Ex.P2 to Ex.P10.

¶66

Apart from above, transaction was corroborated by marking of construction agreement as Ex.P11. Said documents are consistent with pleading and deposition of PW.1. There is no challenge about infraction of time line indicated in Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under such circumstances, Trial Court proceeded to accept uncontroverted evidence on behalf of complainant and passed impugned judgment. It is also seen that on reappreciation, Appellate Court affirmed conclusion. It is seen that both Courts have on examination of entire material on record, arrived at reasoned conclusions. Same are not established to suffer from perversity.

¶67

In view of above, it is seen accused herein has without justification sought to dilate proceedings. Hence, revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024

¶69

10 -

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

payable to respondent/complainant within four weeks from

¶72

today.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

( RAVI V HOSMANI)

¶75

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment, conviction and sentence dated 01.09.2021 in C.C.No.29703/2017 by the Learned 12th Addl. C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru, convicting the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; concurrently challenged along with the appellate judgment dated 14.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.728/2021.¶23
Learned 12th Addl. C.M.M Court, Bengaluru · 01.09.2021
Prior proceeding
Private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.: complainant a civil contractor; construction agreement dated 30.08.2016 with accused for building at Kempapura Agrahara, Bengaluru North Taluk; complainant constructed upto first floor investing more than Rs.23,00,000/- against payment of only Rs.5,00,000/-; Rs.18,00,000/- demanded.¶32
Prior proceeding
Cheque no.207052 dated 22.08.2017 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, Sagara Branch issued by accused towards the claimed amount; presented and dishonoured on 24.08.2017 with endorsement 'funds insufficient'.¶32
Prior proceeding
On accused's request cheque re-presented on 26.09.2017 and again dishonoured on 27.09.2017 with same endorsement; demand notice dated 19.10.2017 issued by complainant, returned with postal remark 'no such person'.¶36
Prior proceeding
Trial course: sworn statement of complainant recorded 08.12.2017 with Exhibits P1 to P11 marked; plea recorded 03.07.2018; first application for recalling PW.1 for cross-examination allowed; cross-examination repeatedly taken as 'nil' due to absence of accused (NBW issued and later recalled); Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement recorded 20.11.2019; two further Section 311 Cr.P.C. applications allowed on costs (03.01.2020 and 11.02.2020) yet no cross-examination conducted; cross taken 'nil' on 10.03.2020 and matter posted for argument.¶50
Prior proceeding
After eight adjournments during Covid-19 SOP period, a further application for recalling PW.1 filed at the stage of argument was rejected by reasoned order on the ground that sufficient opportunity was provided but not utilized; matter proceeded and the impugned judgment was passed.¶59
Prior proceeding
Appeal: Criminal Appeal No.728/2021 before the XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH65), Bengaluru, decided 14.07.2023; on re-appreciation the Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court's conclusion.¶66

Sri G T Ranganatha Sharma v. Sri K Munirathnam Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G T Ranganatha Sharma v. Sri K Munirathnam Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr K. S. Kumar Vs Mr. Sathish

Sri. Arjun Kulkarni Vs Sri. Chandrashekar J

Madhu Vs State of Karnataka

K S Ganesh Vs a Govindaraju

Sri. Puttanayaka Vs Sri. Chandrakhantha

Nimishambha Enterprises Vs Sri. Chikkamakegowda