Dismissed¶13

Smt Savithri v. T P Bargeshappa

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2025CRL.RP/1363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act conviction upheld in revision; Section 139 NI Act presumption not rebutted; cheque dishonoured 'payment stopped by drawer'; stop-payment instruction Ex.D1; legally enforceable debt; loan agreement Ex.P1; TDS defence rejected; failure to reply demand notice; perversity of concurrent findings argued and rejected; revision under S.397 r/w 401 CrPC dismissed; Karnataka High Court; CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

Ex.P1 loan agreement bears the accused's signature; the amount mentioned in Ex.P1 tallies with the Ex.P2 cheque and the date of lending also tallies. ¶10

Smt Savithri Vs T P Bargeshappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings convicting the accused under Section 138 NI Act are perverse, particularly the finding that the Ex.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt, so as to call for interference in revision. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

No grounds of perversity were made out; the revision petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Ex.P1 loan agreement bears the accused's signature; the amount mentioned in Ex.P1 tallies with the Ex.P2 cheque and the date of lending also tallies.

¶10

Key takeaways

There was due compliance with the provisions of Section 138 NI Act in respect of presentation of the cheque, its dishonour, issuance of demand notice and filing of the complaint.ratio¶10
Execution of the cheque and its issuance to the complainant by the accused being undisputed, the presumption under Section 139 NI Act stands attracted.ratio¶12
The accused's plea that the cheque was issued towards TDS amounts and that the complainant failed to return it was untenable, since the stop-payment instruction to the banker would in that event have been given immediately during 2015 and not after issuance of the demand notice.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (Ss.397/401 CrPC) by accused Smt. Savithri against concurrent convictions under S.138 NI Act — dismissed by High Court of Karnataka (Ravi V Hosmani, J., order dt.28.11.2025). Complainant T.P. Bargeshappa alleged loan of Rs.3,00,000 on 25.07.2015 under agreement Ex.P1; cheque no.374311 dt.15.12.2016 (Ex.P2, Corporation Bank, Rajajinagar Branch) dishonoured with endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer' on 23.12.2016; demand notice dt.29.12.2016 served 05.01.2017 went unanswered. Court found Ex.P1 signed by accused with amount and date tallying with the cheque; due compliance with S.138 steps (presentation, dishonour, notice, complaint); execution and issuance of cheque undisputed, attracting S.139 presumption; accused's TDS/stop-payment defence (Ex.D1) rejected as the bank instruction would have been given in 2015, not after the demand notice; failure to reply to notice drew an inference against accused. Conviction dated 02.09.2021 (XIII Addl. CMM, C.C.No.29765/2017) confirmed on 03.10.2023 (LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Crl.A.No.656/2021) held free of perversity; revision petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1363 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAVITHRI W/O MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT 880, 1^ST FLOOR 6^TH MAIN, KAMALANAGAR BANGALORE-560 079.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAIRAJ .G, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

T.P. BARGESHAPPA OFFICE AT 68, 2^ND FLOOR SERVICE ROAD OFF. WEST OF CHORD ROAD 2^ND STAGE, MAHALAMIPURAM BENGALURU-560 086.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND PASSED BY THE LEARNED HONBLE LXI CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-62) IN CRL.APPEAL NO.656/2021 DATED 03.10.2023 AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.29765/2017 DATED 02.09.2021 AND

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging judgment dated 03.10.2023 passed by LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH62), in Crl.A.no.656/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2021 passed by XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.29765/2017, this revision petition is filed.

¶26

Sri Jairaj G., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision petition was by accused challenging concurrent erroneous findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ( 'NI Act ', for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (' CrPC ', for short) alleging that accused was well-known to him and had borrowed sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.07.2015 in order to tide financial distress

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

by assuring to repay same within three months and by executing loan agreement.

¶31

And on demand for repayment, after lapse of said

¶32

period, accused had issued cheque bearing no.374311 dated 15.12.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer' on 23.12.2016 and despite service of demand notice dated 29.12.2016 on 05.01.2017, accused failed to repay amount and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶33

It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Whereupon, complainant examined himself and another as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which he denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter accused led rebuttal evidence by examining himself as DW.1 and got marked one document as Exhibit D1.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

It was submitted, though accused had set up

¶38

various defences and substantiated same during crossexamination of PW.1 and as well as in rebuttal evidence, trial Court without proper appreciation convicted accused. Even appeal filed against same was dismissed without proper re-appreciation. Thus, judgments passed by both Courts suffered from perversity calling for interference.

¶39

It was submitted that accused was client of complainant, who was Chartered Accountant. Towards payment of income tax, accused had issued cheque to complainant. Same was misused for initiation of present proceedings. It was therefore submitted that there was no legally enforceable debt. Same is substantiated by fact that accused had issued direction to his Banker for stopping payment under Ex.D1. On said ground sought for allowing revision petition.

¶40

7. Respondent is served, but unrepresented.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused impugned judgments and Trail Court record.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, mainly on ground of perversity insofar as finding that issuance of Ex.P2 - cheque was towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court took note of assertions by complainant that accused had borrowed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant on 25.07.2015 by executing a loan agreement agreeing to repay same within three months. Complainant deposed as PW.1 reiterating same and producing copy of loan agreement as Ex.P1.

¶45

Perusal of Ex.P1 would indicate that agreement is signed by accused. Amount mentioned in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 - cheque tally, date of lending also tallies. Trial Court noted that there was due compliance with provisions of Section 138 of NI Act, insofar as presentation of cheque; its dishonor; issuance of demand notice and filing of complaint. It is seen that PW.1 has been cross-examined by accused. It is indeed an admission about accused having filed income tax returns for years 2012-

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 through complainant but, nothing more is elicited.

¶50

During cross-examination, accused had also set up defence disputing financial capacity of complainant. However, complainant stated that his annual income was Rs.12,00,000/and lending of money was reflected in his income tax returns. In cross-examination, suggestions are made disputing source of money for lending. However, complainant has stated that said amount was available in cash with him. Insofar as Ex.P1, there is no cross- examination as would dispute Ex.P1.

¶51

Besides above, execution of cheque and its issuance to complainant by accused is not disputed. This would attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. In his deposition, accused has stated that cheque in question was issued towards TDS amount which were could not be completed and at that time complainant had failed to return cheque. If it were so, intimation to Banker for stopping payment would have been made immediately during 2015 and not after issuance of demand notice in question. There is also no cross-examination about hand writings on cheque.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Besides above, there is failure on part of accused to

¶55

reply to demand notice, which would lead to drawing of inference against accused. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court and Appellate Court have referred to contentions urged and rightly extended presumption under Section 139 of NI Act in favour of complainant and held failure on part of accused to upset same.

¶56

No grounds of perversity made out. Revision petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed .

¶57

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶58

GRD

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Smt Savithri v. T P Bargeshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Savithri v. T P Bargeshappa

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

Sri Lokesh Vs Smt Indira K P

Sri. Siddana Bovi, Vs Sri. Shivanna

Mr S Subramanya Bhat Vs Mr Nagaraj Tanthri

M Dineshkumar Vs Smt S R Poornima

Mrs Deepa Vs Mrs Rajalaxmi

Sri. T.S. Suresh Vs State by Town Police