Dismissed¶49

Mr. Nagaraj Acharya v. Mr. Ravindra Acharya

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2025CRL.RP/1590/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act; criminal revision u/Ss.397/401 CrPC dismissed; concurrent conviction upheld; cheque dishonour 'funds insufficient'; nil cross-examination of PW1 despite repeated opportunities; unreplied demand notice — adverse inference; Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069 relied on; perversity not established; mode of payment and financial capacity arguments rejected; CRL.RP No.1590 of 2023; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Ravi V Hosmani; decided 18-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

There was admittedly no cross-examination of PW-1 by the accused; the record shows repeated opportunities (eleven adjournments after deposition on 26.12.2018, 'nil' cross-examination on 07.09.2019, and four further dates after recall of PW-1 was allowed) were provided but not availed of. ¶37

Mr. Nagaraj Acharya Vs Mr. Ravindra Acharya — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether non-disclosure by PW-1/complainant of the mode of payment of the alleged Rs.2,00,000/- hand loan casts doubt on the payment and renders the concurrent convictions perverse. +2 more

¶37

Ratio / Principle

¶37

Key takeaways

Since Exhibits-P4 to P7 establish service of the Exhibit-P3 demand notice on the accused and admittedly no reply was issued, an inference requires to be drawn against the accused, as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar and Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069).ratio¶44
The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, on appreciation of the entire material on record and finding consistency in the complainant's material, passed the impugned judgments by arriving at reasoned conclusions; none of the grounds urged establishes perversity.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), single Judge (Ravi V Hosmani), oral order dated 18.12.2025 in CRL.RP No.1590 of 2023 under Ss.397/401 CrPC: revision by accused (Nagaraj Acharya) against concurrent conviction under S.138 NI Act — cheque no.317315 dt.14.08.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/- dishonoured ('funds insufficient'), demand notice dt.22.08.2017 unreplied; conviction dt.18.12.2020 by JMFC (V Court), Mangaluru in C.C.No.1284/2017, appeal Crl.A.No.78/2021 dismissed dt.15.11.2023 by Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru — REVISION DISMISSED. Accused never cross-examined PW1 despite eleven adjournments and four post-recall dates (cross-examination taken 'nil'); Exhibits-P4 to P7 proved service of demand notice; following Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, this Court held an adverse inference must be drawn against the accused; courts below held to have reached reasoned conclusions on consistent material; grounds of undisclosed mode of payment and unproved financial capacity rejected as not establishing perversity.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1590 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. NAGARAJ ACHARYA, S/O ANANDA RAYA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT SIT NO.88, 5^TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA, MANGALURU. PROPRIETOR: SRI DEVI FURNITURES, SHREYA RESIDENCY BUILDING, JARANDAYA DAIVASTANA, GANESHPUR, KATIPALLA, KAIKAMBA, MANGALURU , D K DISTRICT - 575 030.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SACHIN K. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

MR. RAVINDRA ACHARYA S/O DAMODHAR ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT SITE NO.190, 2^ND BLOCK, KATIPALLA, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 030.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.11.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.78/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 18.12.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1284/2017 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C. (V COURT), MANGALURU, D.K. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRL.RP AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging judgment dated 15.11.2023 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.no.78/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2020 passed by JMFC (V Court), Mangaluru, D.K., in C.C.no.1284/2017, this revision petition is filed.

¶23

Sri Sachin K. Naik, learned counsel appearing for Sri Rajashekar S., advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that instant proceedings arise out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (' CrPC ', for short) alleging that accused had obtained hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in month of October, 2016, for his marriage, promising to repay it after marriage. Though accused got married on 02.11.2016, but failed to repay amount and on demand issued cheque bearing no.317315 dated 14.08.2017 drawn on Corporation Bank, Kulur Branch, Mangalore, which when presented for collection on

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

14.08.2017, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 17.08.2017 and thereafter accused failed to repay amount even after receipt of demand notice dated 22.08.2017 got issued by complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (' NI Act ', for short).

¶28

It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P7. It was submitted, due to prevalence of Covid-19 pandemic, complainant could not be cross-examined and by taking cross-examination as 'nil', statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. Accused was unable to lead defence evidence. Trial Court proceeded to pass impugned judgment convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It was submitted, even appeal filed there against was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision petition.

¶29

It was firstly submitted either in demand notice or in complaint or in deposition, PW-1 had disclosed mode of payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed. Same would cast doubt

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

about payment. Apart from above, complainant had failed to establish his financial capacity to lend such money. Both Courts had failed to consider these factors while passing impugned judgment and therefore suffered from perversity calling for interference.

¶34

None appears for respondent.

¶35

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶36

judgments and record.

¶37

This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Main ground of challenge is perversity of findings firstly, non-disclosure of mode of payment would cast doubt and secondly, failure to establish financial capacity. Admittedly, there is no cross-examination of PW-1 by accused. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court observed that despite providing opportunity there was failure on part of accused to cross-examine. While Appellate Court observed that after evidence of PW-1 was recorded on 26.12.2018, matter was adjourned on 11 occasions i.e. 29.01.2019, 11.03.2019, 23.04.2019, 29.05.2019, 20.06.2019,

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

12.07.2019, 24.07.2019, 06.08.2019, 14.08.2019, 22.08.2019

¶42

for his cross-examination. On 07.09.2019, cross-examination was taken as 'nil'.

¶43

After recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of CrPC on 05.11.2019, matter was adjourned to 29.11.2019 when application for recall of PW-1 for crossexamination was allowed and opportunity to cross-examine was provided on 14.12.2019, 22.01.2020, 10.02.2020 and 09.03.2020. But, opportunity was not availed. Consequently cross-examination was taken as 'nil' and matter was proceeded with.

¶44

Apart from above, Exhibits-P4 to P7 would establish service of Exhibit-P3 - demand notice on accused. Admittedly, no reply is issued. As per observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar and Anr. , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069 , an inference would require to be drawn against accused. It is seen that while passing impugned judgments, trial Court as well as Appellate Court have on appreciation of entire material on record and finding consistency in material for complainant proceeded to

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

pass impugned judgments convicting accused. Same is by arriving at reasoned conclusions. None of grounds urged would establish perversity. Consequently, revision petition is

¶49

dismissed .

¶50

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶51

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 15.11.2023 in Crl.A.No.78/2021 dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2020 in C.C.No.1284/2017 for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.¶22
Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru · 15.11.2023
Prior proceeding
Private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 CrPC alleging accused obtained hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in October 2016 for his marriage, repayment promised after marriage.¶23
Prior proceeding
On demand, accused issued cheque bearing no.317315 dated 14.08.2017 drawn on Corporation Bank, Kulur Branch, Mangalore.¶23
Prior proceeding
Cheque presented on 14.08.2017 returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 17.08.2017; demand notice dated 22.08.2017 issued by complainant; offence under Section 138 NI Act alleged.¶27
Prior proceeding
In trial in C.C.No.1284/2017, complainant examined himself as PW1 and Exhibits-P1 to P7 were marked.¶28
Prior proceeding
Cross-examination of PW1 taken as 'nil'; statement of accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC; accused unable to lead defence evidence; trial Court convicted accused under Section 138 NI Act (judgment dated 18.12.2020).¶28
Prior proceeding
After PW1's evidence recorded on 26.12.2018, matter adjourned on 11 occasions for accused's cross-examination.¶37
Prior proceeding
On 07.09.2019 cross-examination was taken as 'nil'.¶42
Prior proceeding
After Section 313 CrPC statement on 05.11.2019, application for recall of PW1 for cross-examination allowed on 29.11.2019; four further opportunities provided (14.12.2019, 22.01.2020, 10.02.2020, 09.03.2020).¶43
Prior proceeding
Opportunities for cross-examination not availed; cross-examination taken as 'nil' and matter proceeded with.¶43
Prior proceeding
Appeal Crl.A.no.78/2021 filed by accused against conviction was dismissed on 15.11.2023 by Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, leading to this revision petition.¶22

Mr. Nagaraj Acharya v. Mr. Ravindra Acharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Nagaraj Acharya v. Mr. Ravindra Acharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Ashish Jhunjhunwala Vs Abb Limited

Smt. H G Gayatri, Vs Smt. Chethana K N.

Smt T Lalitha Vs Smt Prasanna Kumari

Sri Devdas Vs Sri Cheluvaraju

Sri J S Ramesh Vs Sri Ambarisha N

Sri Mubarak Vs State of Karnataka