Dismissed¶52

Smt. Shashikala S v. Smt. Aruna Devi a

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2025CRL.RP/1558/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act criminal revision against concurrent conviction dismissed; scope of revision confined to perversity/statutory infraction per Amit Kapoor (2012) 9 SCC 460; chit fund legally enforceable debt; cheque no.860320 Rs.4,10,500 dishonoured 'insufficient funds'; demand notice served; statutory presumptions on signed cheque; no rebuttal evidence; s.313 admission; suspension of sentence refused (IA no.1/2025); Karnataka HC, 24.10.2025, Justice Ravi V Hosmani; CRL.RP No.1558 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:42082

What did the court decide?

None - revision petition dismissed; IA no.1/2025 filed for suspension of sentence also dismissed ¶52

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - revision petition dismissed; IA no.1/2025 filed for suspension of sentence also dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition against concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 NI Act warranted interference, i.e., whether the concurrent findings suffered from perversity or infraction of statutory provisions. +3 more

¶40

Court's answer

Interference declined: both Courts made independent assessment of the material, assigned detailed reasons and arrived at the same conclusion; their concurrent findings cannot be held to suffer from perversity or be contrary to statutory provisions.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

First ground (transaction of 2014 with chit amount already paid, hence no subsisting legally enforceable debt) rejected: accused led no rebuttal evidence and failed to elicit any admission despite cross-examining complainant and witnesses; PWs.2 and 3, other chit members, supported the complainant's case; contention that the cheque was given as security would admit the accused's signature and attract statutory presumptions.

¶41

Key takeaways

Objection that chit business was run without permission or licence rejected: the chit was informal and amongst known members.ratio¶43
Objection of two complaints on identical pleadings and evidence rejected: cause of action accrued in respect of two different cheques; accused himself elicited in cross-examination of complainant that four cheques were collected; in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement accused admitted complainant was running chit business since four years, that he was a member, and about issuance of the cheque and its dishonour.ratio¶46
Contention that the entire amount was repaid rejected as unsubstantiated: though taken, no evidence was led to support it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Ravi V Hosmani, J.) - CRL.RP No.1558 of 2025 filed u/s 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. (u/s 438 r/w 442 BNSS) by the accused (Smt. Shashikala S.) against concurrent judgments of conviction u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: trial Court (XVI ACMM, C.C.no.9581/2019, dt.18.08.2023) and first appellate Court (LXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, CCH-69, Crl.A.no.1347/2025, dt.18.07.2025). Invoking Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 - interference against concurrent findings normally confined to infraction of statutory provisions or perversity - the Court held both Courts had independently assessed the material with detailed reasons and their findings were neither perverse nor contrary to statute. Grounds rejected: (i) no subsisting debt - accused led no rebuttal evidence, elicited no admissions, PWs.2-3 (chit members) supported complainant, and the security-cheque plea admits the signature attracting statutory presumptions; (ii) unlicensed chit business immaterial as chit was informal amongst known members; (iii) twin complaints explained by cause of action resting on two different cheques, four cheques having been collected; repayment claim unsupported by evidence. Accused's s.313 statement admitted chit membership, cheque issuance and dishonour. Revision petition dismissed; IA no.1/2025 for suspension of sentence also dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42082 CRL.RP No. 1558 of 2025

¶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. 1558 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHASHIKALA S., D/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT 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

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

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

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE BOTH THE JUDGEMENTS PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) IN CRL.A.NO.1347/2023 DTD 18.07.2025 AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE XVI ACMM, BENGALURU CITY AND C/C OF XV ACMM, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.9581/2019 DTD 18.08.2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND THEREBY TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:42082 CRL.RP No. 1558 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by LXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69) in Crl.A.no.1347/2025 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.9581/2019, this revision petition is filed.

¶24

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).

¶25

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.860320 for Rs.4,10,500/- drawn on State

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42082 CRL.RP No. 1558 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Bank of Mysore, Madhavanagara Branch, Bengaluru, dated 27.03.2019, which when presented for collection through complainant's bank i.e., State Bank of India, Madhavanagar Branch, Bengaluru, on 28.03.2019 returned dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. And thereafter, though complainant got issued demand notice to accused on 29.03.2019, which was served on 05.04.2019, 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.9581/2019.

¶29

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 P19. 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.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:42082 CRL.RP No. 1558 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

It was firstly submitted, chit transaction admitted by accused was of year 2014 and chit amount was already paid. Therefore, there was no subsisting legally enforceable 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.

¶34

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶35

record.

¶36

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

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:42082 CRL.RP No. 1558 of 2025

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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

¶41

First ground urged that chit transaction was of year 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.

¶42

Even contention that chit business was being run

¶43

without permission or licence would not hold good as chit was informal and amongst known members. Other contention that

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42082 CRL.RP No. 1558 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

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 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.

¶47

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.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:42082 CRL.RP No. 1558 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Hence, there are grounds to interfere. Consequently,

¶52

revision petition stands dismissed . In view of same, IA

¶53

no.1/2025 filed for suspension of sentence is also dismissed.

¶54

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶55

Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the revision petition against concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 NI Act warranted interference, i.e., whether the concurrent findings suffered from perversity or infraction of statutory provisions.¶40
The court held
Interference declined: both Courts made independent assessment of the material, assigned detailed reasons and arrived at the same conclusion; their concurrent findings cannot be held to suffer from perversity or be contrary to statutory provisions.ratio¶47
2.
Whether there was no subsisting legally enforceable debt, the accused's case being that the chit transaction was of year 2014 and the chit amount was already paid.¶33
The court held
First ground (transaction of 2014 with chit amount already paid, hence no subsisting legally enforceable debt) rejected: accused led no rebuttal evidence and failed to elicit any admission despite cross-examining complainant and witnesses; PWs.2 and 3, other chit members, supported the complainant's case; contention that the cheque was given as security would admit the accused's signature and attract statutory presumptions.ratio¶41
3.
Whether the complainant running chit fund business without licence probablized the defence set up by the accused.¶33
The court held
Objection that chit business was run without permission or licence rejected: the chit was informal and amongst known members.ratio¶43
4.
Whether filing of two complaints on identical terms, without explanation of separate transactions, vitiated the case.¶33
The court held
Objection of two complaints on identical pleadings and evidence rejected: cause of action accrued in respect of two different cheques; accused himself elicited in cross-examination of complainant that four cheques were collected; in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement accused admitted complainant was running chit business since four years, that he was a member, and about issuance of the cheque and its dishonour.ratio¶46

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