Dismissed¶12

Lokesh. S. R. v. Smt. Sandhya v Pai

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2025CRL.RP/1334/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Ravi V Hosmani J., 31.10.2025, CRL.RP No.1334 of 2023: revision dismissed against concurrent S.138 NI Act convictions (cheque no.588314 dated 18.08.2021 for Rs.6,50,000/- on State Bank of India, Surathkal; returned 'funds insufficient' 19.08.2021; demand notice 30.08.2021 served 31.08.2021). Reply notice Ex.P6 admitted issuance of cheque towards full discharge of debt and borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/-; defence of repayment of Rs.5,40,000/- at Rs.10,000/- per month to complainant's husband rejected; presumption in favour of complainant not displaced; findings not perverse; conviction upheld.

What did the court decide?

The accused did not dispute receipt of the demand notice (Ex.P3) or his issuance of the reply notice (Ex.P6). ¶10

Lokesh. S. R. Vs Smt. Sandhya v Pai — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused owed a legally recoverable debt to the complainant and stood in a relationship of creditor and debtor with her, notwithstanding his contention that the hand loan was taken from the complainant's husband and had been repaid. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The accused did not dispute receipt of the demand notice (Ex.P3) or his issuance of the reply notice (Ex.P6).

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Reply notice Ex.P6 contains a clear admission that the accused signed and issued the cheque for Rs.6,50,000/- towards discharge of debt fully and had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant; consequently, his claim of having paid Rs.5,40,000/- in monthly instalments of Rs.10,000/- has no basis.

¶11

Key takeaways

There was no dispute about compliance with the timeline mandated under Section 138 of NI Act.obiter¶10
The admission in Ex.P6 amounts to admission of the relationship of creditor and debtor as well as of due execution and issuance of the Ex.P1 cheque, which attracts presumption in favour of the complainant.ratio¶11
Despite leading evidence and cross-examining the complainant, the accused elicited nothing material to upset the presumption.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC by the accused against concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act: the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru (Crl.A.No.22/2023, judgment dated 29.08.2023) had confirmed the conviction and sentence dated 16.01.2023 passed by JMFC (VIII) Court, Mangaluru in C.C.No.105/2021. The accused's reply notice (Ex.P6) contained a clear admission that he had signed and issued the cheque for Rs.6,50,000/- towards discharge of the debt fully and had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant; this admission established the creditor-debtor relationship and due execution and issuance of the Ex.P1 cheque, attracting presumption in favour of the complainant, and left his plea of having repaid Rs.5,40,000/- in monthly instalments of Rs.10,000/- without basis. Nothing material was elicited in evidence or cross-examination to upset the presumption; the concurrent findings were well reasoned and not perverse; no ground for interference was made out and the revision petition was dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43701 CRL.RP No. 1334 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1334 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LOKESH. S. R. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAMAIAH, R/AT D.NO. 7-28/8 (1), 'HONGIRANA', KANA, IDYA, NEAR GANESH BEEDI, SURATHKAL P.O., SURATHKAL, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575 014.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI CHIDANANDA S. MATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. SANDHYA V PAI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O K. VASUDEVA PAI, R/AT D. NO.1-67/2, 1^ST FLOOR, SRI VASAVI PAI COMPOUND, BEHIND GANESH BEEDI WORKS, HOSABETTU VILLAGE, MANGALURU TQ AND DIST - 575 014.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29.08.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL. A. NO.22/2023 DATED 29.08.2023 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:43701 CRL.RP No. 1334 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging judgment dated 29.08.2023 passed by VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.no.22/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2023 passed by JMFC (VIII) Court, Mangaluru, in C.C.no.105/2021, this revision petition is filed.

¶23

Sri Chidananda S. Mathad, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ( 'NI Act ', for short). It was submitted, on an allegation that petitioner (accused) being neighbor had approached respondent (complainant) in month of February, 2017, requesting for hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for urgent financial necessities and complainant had advanced said sum to accused by availing loan from Central Railway Employees Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Mumbai, of which, her husband was Member as accused had agreed to return said amount within three years.

¶24

Thereafter on demand, accused had issued cheque

¶25

bearing no.588314 dated 18.08.2021 for Rs.6,50,000/- drawn

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:43701 CRL.RP No. 1334 of 2023

¶27

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

on State Bank of India, MRPL Road, Surathkal, Mangaluru, which when presented for payment, returned with endorsement as "funds insufficient" on 19.08.2021 and even when complainant had got issued demand notice dated 30.08.2021, which was served on accused on 31.08.2021, he had got issued reply but failed to make payment within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (' CrPC ', for short) was filed.

¶30

On appearance, accused denied allegations and sought to be tried. Complainant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D3.

¶31

It was submitted, though accused had set-up substantial defence, without proper consideration trial Court proceeded to convict him. It was submitted even appeal filed by accused against said judgment, came to be dismissed without proper appreciation leading to this revision petition.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:43701 CRL.RP No. 1334 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

It was a specific case of accused that he had taken

¶36

hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from Vasudeva Pai - husband of complainant and had repaid total amount of Rs.5,40,000/- at rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It was submitted, there was no financial transaction between accused and complainant. It was further submitted, at time of obtaining said loan from complainant's husband, cheque in question was issued as security, since Vasudeva Pai was employee of Konkan Railway Corporation, present complaint was filed by his wife without any cause of action.

¶37

It was submitted, in cross-examination complainant admitted that money lent was Rs.5,00,000/-, but cheque was for Rs.6,50,000/- which included interest. It was submitted, when complainant did not have Money Lender's License, allegation of accused being indebted for Rs.6,50,000/- would be without material basis and therefore submits that entire proceedings are void ab initio . On said grounds seeks for allowing revision petition.

¶38

On other hand, Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for

¶39

respondent - complainant opposed petition. It was submitted,

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43701 CRL.RP No. 1334 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

scope for interference with concurrent findings in revision petition would be limited. Attention was drawn to judgment passed in appeal wherein at para-19 there was reference to contents of Ex.P6 - Reply notice issued by accused containing clear admission that accused had signed and issued cheque for Rs.6,50,000/- towards discharge of debt fully. It was submitted, accused had also admitted to have borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant and undertaken to repay it by February, 2022. In view of said admission, contention denying or disputing financial transaction on non-existence of legally recoverable debt would not carry any water. On said ground sought for dismissal of revision petition.

¶43

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and certified copy of Ex.P6 made available for perusal by learned counsel for complainant.

¶44

As noted above, this revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings for conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Submissions made would indicate that there is no dispute about compliance with timeline mandated in Section 138 of NI Act. Insofar as first contention

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43701 CRL.RP No. 1334 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

denying existence of legally recoverable debt or relationship of creditor and debtor, accused has not disputed receipt of demand notice at Ex.P3 and about issuance of reply notice at Ex.P6 by him.

¶48

On perusal, Ex.P6 contains clear admission that

¶49

accused had signed and issued cheque for Rs.6,50,000/towards discharge of debt fully as well as about borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant. In view of clear admission, claim of accused to have paid sum of Rs.5,40,000/- in monthly instalments at Rs.10,000/- would not have any basis. Same would also amount to admission of relationship of creditor and debtor as well as about due execution and issuance of Ex.P1 - cheque, which would attract presumption in favour of complainant.

¶50

Despite leading evidence and cross-examinating complainant, nothing material is elicited to upset presumption. Admission by complainant about lending Rs.5,00,000/- would not substantiate any defence. It is also seen, Trial Court as well as Appellate Court on appreciation of entire material on record have arrived at well reasoned conclusion. Said findings are not

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:43701 CRL.RP No. 1334 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

established to be suffering from perversity. No ground made to

¶55

interfere, revision petition is dismissed .

¶56

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶57