Dismissed¶10

K R Rajendra v. K H Srinivas

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2025CRL.RP/1379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:50149; CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Ravi V Hosmani, J.; decided 02.12.2025; revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC; conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; adequacy of opportunity to cross-examine complainant; principles of natural justice; unchallenged deposition of CW.1; order-sheet chronology (affidavit 19.01.2018, no recall of PW-1, adjournments for accused's absence, NBW 23.05.2018, defence evidence 'nil' 04.08.2018); no perversity; revision dismissed; Maddur JMFC trial; Mandya Sessions appeal; cheque no.672416 for Rs.3,00,000/- dishonoured 'insufficient funds' 07.01.2017; demand notice 23.01.2017 'unclaimed'; respondent served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Sufficient opportunity was granted to the accused for cross-examination, but it was not utilised.

K R Rajendra Vs K H Srinivas — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused was denied adequate opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, amounting to a violation of principles of natural justice. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

Sufficient opportunity was granted to the accused for cross-examination, but it was not utilised.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The contention that adequate opportunity was not granted does not sustain; the deposition of the complainant remained unchallenged.

¶8

Key takeaways

In passing the impugned judgments, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court referred to the material on record, found compliance with statutory provisions and arrived at well reasoned findings.ratio¶9
The first appellate Court addressed the specific contention about lack of opportunity and, by referring to the record, rejected it.ratio¶9
No case of perversity in the findings nor violation of any statutory provision was established; the revision petition is without merit and stands dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Ss.397/401 CrPC) by the accused against concurrent Section 138 NI Act convictions — C.C.No.613/2017 (III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Maddur, 01.09.2018) confirmed in Crl.A.No.133/2022 (IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, 13.09.2023) — dismissed by oral order dated 02.12.2025 (Ravi V Hosmani, J.), the respondent-complainant being served and unrepresented. Sole ground urged was breach of natural justice: inadequate opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. From the trial-court order sheet the Court found: complainant's affidavit accepted 19.01.2018 with no application by the accused to recall PW-1; adjournments on 07.03.2018 and 16.03.2018 for the accused's absence; Section 313 statement recorded 06.04.2018; further adjournment on 23.05.2018 with non-bailable warrant and surety notice, re-issued 25.06.2018; defence evidence taken as 'nil' on 04.08.2018; matter posted for judgment noting no recalling of the complainant. Held: sufficient opportunity was granted but not utilised, the complainant's deposition therefore remained unchallenged; both courts made well-reasoned findings with statutory compliance, and the first appellate Court had specifically considered and rejected the lack-of-opportunity contention; no perversity or statutory violation was established. Background: complaint under S.200 CrPC alleging cheque no.672416 dated 20.12.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/- (State Bank of Mysore, Maddur Branch) dishonoured on 07.01.2017 with 'insufficient funds', and demand notice of 23.01.2017 returned 'unclaimed'.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50149 CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1379 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K R RAJENDRA, S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A 2^ND CROSS, NEAR AMBEDKAR PARK, SIDDARTH NAGAR, MADDUR TOWN - 571 422.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

[BY SRI SATISHCHANDRA R., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

K H SRINIVAS, S/O HONNEGOWDA K, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, MADDUR TOWN , MADDUR - 571 422.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.133/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA DATED 13.09.2023 AND BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF C.C.NO.613/2017 PASSED BY COURT III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR DATED 01.09.2018.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:50149 CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging judgment dated 13.09.2023 passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.A.no.133/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence 01.09.2018 passed by III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, in C.C.no.613/2017, this revision petition is filed.

¶23

Sri Sathishchandra R., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that this revision petition was against concurrent erroneous judgments, 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 for repayment of amount borrowed from complainant, accused had issued cheque bearing no.672416 dated 20.12.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Maddur Branch, which when presented for payment through complainant's Banker Shimsha Sahakara Bank

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50149 CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Niyamitha, Maddur Branch, same got dishonored with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 07.01.2017. Despite service of demand notice got issued by complainant on 23.01.2017, same returned as 'unclaimed', accused failed to repay amount within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶27

On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant was examined as CW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which he denied. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Thereafter, trial Court passed impugned judgment, convicting accused but without providing adequate opportunity to accused. It was submitted, even appeal filed there against was dismissed without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances. Therefore, impugned judgment suffered from perversity and call for interference.

¶28

4. Respondent is served and unrepresented.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused

¶30

impugned judgments and trial Court record.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50149 CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments on sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice i.e. failure to grant adequate opportunity to cross-examine complainant.

¶34

Bare perusal of order sheet of proceedings before trial Court would reveal that on 19.01.2018, affidavit of complainant in lieu of examination-in-chief was accepted. It was also noted that accused had not filed application for recall of PW-1 for cross-examination and matter was set for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, on account of absence of accused, matter was adjourned on 07.03.2018 and 16.03.2018. On 06.04.2018, statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. And matter was posted for defence evidence on 07.05.2018. Even at this stage, matter was adjourned on account of absence of accused on 23.05.2018, by issuing non-bailable warrant and notice to surety. On 25.06.2018, they were re-issued. Thereafter only on 04.08.2018 defence evidence was taken as ' nil ', and matter was posted for judgment after hearing

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50149 CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

arguments and noting that there was no recalling of complainant.

¶38

This would indicate that sufficient opportunity was granted to accused for cross-examination, but not utilized. Thus, contention that adequate opportunity was not granted would not sustain. Thus, deposition of complainant remained unchallenged.

¶39

While passing impugned judgments, trial Court as well as first appellate Court have referred to material on record, found compliance with statutory provisions and arrived at well reasoned findings. First appellate Court has addressed specific contention about lack of opportunity and by referring to record, rejected same.

¶40

Thus, no case of perversity in findings nor violation of any statutory provisions is established. Revision petition is without merit and stands dismissed .

¶41

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶42

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

K R Rajendra v. K H Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K R Rajendra v. K H Srinivas

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

K Ashok Vs M/S Varada Areca Marketing

K Ashok Vs M/S Varada Areca Marketing

Sri B Krishnamurthy Vs Sri M Arun Kumar

Gopala Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Vijayanaik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekhar B S Vs Sri I.C. Shivanna