Dismissed¶46

Smt. Shashikala S v. Smt. Aruna Devi a

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2025CRL.RP/1557/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, CRL.RP No.1557/2025 (Ravi V Hosmani, 24.10.2025): revision under S.397/401 CrPC (S.438/442 BNSS) against concurrent S.138 NI Act convictions (CC 9582/2019, dated 18.08.2023; confirmed in Crl.A.1346/2025, dated 18.07.2025) dismissed. Grounds rejected: 2014 chit debt already paid, unlicensed chit fund business, twin complaints on identical terms; cheque-as-security admits signature attracting statutory presumptions; no rebuttal evidence; S.313 admissions noted. Scope of revision per Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 — interference confined to perversity/statutory infraction. IA no.1/2025 for suspension of sentence also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the conviction and sentence stand. IA no.1/2025 filed for suspension of sentence is also dismissed. ¶46

Smt. Shashikala S Vs Smt. Aruna Devi a — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the conviction and sentence stand. IA no.1/2025 filed for suspension of sentence is also dismissed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings convicting the accused under Section 138 NI Act suffer from perversity or infraction of statutory provisions so as to warrant interference in this revision petition. +3 more

¶32

Court's answer

Both Courts independently assessed the material on record and arrived at the same conclusion based on it by assigning detailed reasons; the concurrent findings therefore cannot be held to be suffering from perversity or contrary to provisions of statute, leaving no ground for interference in revision.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The first ground that the chit transaction was of year 2014 and the chit amount was already paid would not stand to reason, as the accused led no rebuttal evidence and failed to elicit any admission on this count despite cross-examining the complainant and witnesses; the complainant examined other chit members as PWs.2 and 3 who supported the complainant's case.

¶40

Key takeaways

The contention that the cheque was given as security would amount to an admission of the accused's signature on the cheque, thereby attracting the statutory presumptions.ratio¶40
The contention that the chit business was being run without permission or licence would not hold good, as the chit was informal and amongst known members.ratio¶41
The contention that there were two complaints on identical pleadings and evidence would also not hold good, as the cause of action accruing in favour of the complainant was in respect of two different cheques.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.; S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) by the accused (petitioner) against concurrent findings of conviction under S.138 NI Act: the LXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-69) in Crl.A.no.1346/2025 had confirmed the conviction and sentence dated 18.08.2023 passed by XVI ACMM, Bengaluru (& C/C XV ACMM) in CC no.9582/2019, arising from dishonour of cheque no.860321 for Rs.4,10,500/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore. Defence grounds — chit transaction of 2014 with amount already paid (no subsisting legally enforceable debt), complainant running chit business without licence, and two complaints on identical terms — were each rejected: no rebuttal evidence was led and no admissions elicited; PWs.2 and 3 (chit members) supported the complainant; treating the cheque as security would admit the signature and attract statutory presumptions; the chit was informal and among known members; and the cause of action arose from two different cheques. Invoking the standard in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander ((2012) 9 SCC 460) that interference with concurrent findings in revision is confined to statutory infraction or perversity, the Court found neither and dismissed the revision petition, also dismissing IA no.1/2025 for suspension of sentence.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:42081 CRL.RP No. 1557 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1557 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHASHIKALA S., D/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/A NO.1939, EWS 9^TH B CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI B.VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. ARUNA DEVI A., W/O SRI SAGAYARAJ R., AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.8 'R' BLOCK, ABBAIAH GARDEN, CHENNASANDRA, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU - 560 067.

¶14

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE BOTH THE JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) IN CRL.A. NO.1346/2023, DATED 18.07.2025, ADN ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE XVI ACMM, BENGALURU CITY, AND C/C OF XV ACMM, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.9582/2019 DATED 18.08.2023, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND THREBY TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:42081 CRL.RP No. 1557 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Challenging judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by LXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69) in Crl.A.no.1346/2025 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2023 passed by XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City & C/C of XV ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.no.9582/2019, this revision petition is filed.

¶22

Sri B Vijay Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short).

¶23

It was submitted, on an allegation that respondent (complainant) and petitioner (accused) were known to each other and accused had subscribed for two chits for Rs.2,00,000/- and two chits for Rs.1,50,000/-, was successful bidder said chits on 20.10.2016 and received chit amount of Rs.4,64,500/-, but was required to pay balance of Rs.4,10,500/- which he failed to pay. And on demand, had issued cheque no.860321 for Rs.4,10,500/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Madavanagara Branch, Bengaluru, dated

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42081 CRL.RP No. 1557 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

02.04.2019, which when presented for collection through complainant's bank i.e., State Bank of India, Madhavanagar Branch, Bengaluru, on 02.04.2019 returned dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. And thereafter, though complainant got issued demand notice to accused on 04.04.2019, which was served, failed to comply and issued false reply thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Act, and filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. registered as CC no.9582/2019.

¶27

It was submitted, accused appeared before trial Court denied allegations and sought to be tried. Thereafter, trial Court recorded evidence of complainant and two other witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P25. On appraisal of incriminating material which accused denied, same was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It was submitted, since accused had set up probable defence and substantiate same in cross-examination of complainant and his witnesses, he did not lead any rebuttal evidence.

¶28

It was firstly submitted, chit transaction admitted

¶29

by accused was of year 2014 and chit amount was already paid. Therefore, there was no subsisting legally enforceable

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42081 CRL.RP No. 1557 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

debt. It was further submitted, complainant was running chit fund business without licence. Further, two complaints were filed on identical terms, without explaining whether there were two separate transactions or stating that filing of single complaint was in respect of two related transactions. It was submitted, in cross-examination, complainant admitted he had not obtained licence for running chit business. This would probablize defence set up. It was submitted both Courts had grossly erred in appreciating said material, therefore their conclusions suffered from perversity. On said ground, sought for allowing revision petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶34

record.

¶35

From above, it is seen this revision is by accused challenging concurrent order of conviction under Section 138 of NI Act. Perusal of impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentences reveal that both Courts have after independent assessment of material on record have arrived at conclusions by assigning detailed reasons. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for interference against

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42081 CRL.RP No. 1557 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

concurrent findings in a revision petition is normally confined to infraction of statutory provisions or where findings are established to be perverse.

¶39

First ground urged that chit transaction was of year

¶40

2014 and chit amount was already paid, would not stand to reason, as accused did not lead any rebuttal evidence and failed to elicit any admission on this count despite crossexamining complainant and witnesses. It is seen, complainant examined other members of chit as PWs.2 and 3, who supported complainant's case. Moreover, contention that cheque was given as security would admit accused's signature on cheque attracting statutory presumptions. Therefore, above contention would not hold water.

¶41

Even contention that chit business was being run without permission or licence would not hold good as chit was informal and amongst known members. Other contention that there were two complaints on identical pleadings and evidence would also not hold good as cause of action accrued in favour of complainant was in respect of two different cheques. It is elicited by accused himself, during cross-examination of complainant that four cheques were collected. Moreover, trial

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42081 CRL.RP No. 1557 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Court referred to admission by accused at time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that complainant was running chit business since four years and accused was one of members, about issuance of cheque and its dishonour. Apart from above, though contention about repayment of entire amount was taken, no evidence was led to substantiate same.

¶45

Under such circumstances and taking note of material on record, trial Court proceeded to pass order of conviction and first appellate Court on independent appreciation, concurred with findings of trial Court. Since both Courts have arrived at same conclusion based on material on record and by assigning reasons, they cannot held to be suffering from perversity or contrary to provisions of statute.

¶46

Hence, there are grounds to interfere. Consequently, revision petition stands dismissed . In view of same, IA no.1/2025 filed for suspension of sentence is also dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶48

Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Smt. Shashikala S v. Smt. Aruna Devi a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shashikala S v. Smt. Aruna Devi a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeevappa R Vs City Corporation, Shivamogga

Sri Prasanna Kumar M Vs Smt G Vijaya Srinivasan

Sathyendra Padiyara Manuru Vs Hardik Shah

Sri Hemanth Salian Vs Sri Rathnakar Kotian

Smt. Shashikala S Vs Smt. Aruna Devi a

Sri Nagaraj v Vs Sri T M Kempanna