K G Suresh Vs Smt Ramya M a

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 03.11.2025 PASSED BIN CRL.A.NO.5011/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND CONVICTION IN CC.NO.998/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PONNAMPET, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 138 OF THE N.I. ACT, B. TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 138 OF THE N.I. ACT. I.A.NO.1/2025 FOR DISPENSATION.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:51264 CRL.RP No. 1850 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Challenging judgment dated 03.11.2025 passed by II

¶22

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, in Crl.A.no.5011/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2022 passed by Civil Judge & JMFC., Ponnampet, in C.C.no.998/2016, this revision petition is filed.

¶23

Sri HV Bhanuprakash, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, present proceedings were initiated on a complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had purchased coffee from complainant worth Rs.3,20,000/- and towards repayment issued cheque no.065114 dated 06.09.2016 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Titimati branch, which when presented for collection returned dishonored with endorsement as 'Account in Dormant state ' and thereafter even when demand notice got issued by complainant was served on 21.09.2016, accused failed to repay amount within time

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:51264 CRL.RP No. 1850 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

permissible, thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶28

It was submitted, on appearance accused denied

¶29

charges and sought trial. Thereafter, trial Court recorded evidence of complainant as PW1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P8. Statement of accused denying incriminating material explained was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused led evidence by examining himself as DW1. No documents were marked. It was submitted though accused had adopted substantial defence denying transaction and contending that cheque was issued to complainant by her husband in respect of earlier transaction, which stood concluded and said cheque was misused for present proceedings, substantiated in crossexamination of PW.1, trial Court based only on presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, passed impugned judgment of conviction. It was submitted, appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by first appellate Court leading to this revision.

¶30

It was submitted, in cross-examination of PW1 suggestions were made, but denied, same was not properly considered. Therefore, findings of both Courts suffer from

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:51264 CRL.RP No. 1850 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

perversity calling for interference and sought for allowing revision petition.

¶35

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶36

judgments as well as records.

¶37

From above, it is seen that this revision is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, solely on ground of perverse finding insofar as denial of existence of legal enforceable debt. While passing impugned judgment trial Court had observed statement of complainant that to clear debt towards purchase of coffee on 06.06.2016, Ex.P.1-cheque dated 06.09.2016 was issued. On presentation, it was dishonoured and about issue of demand notice and filing of private complaint were in compliance of Section 138 of NI Act, i.e. foundational facts for filing complaint were not in dispute. Trial Court also noted defence adopted by accused that cheque was issued to complainant's husband would amount to admission of signature on cheque attracting presumption in favour of complainant which though rebuttable by setting up probable defence, trial Court noted that for discharge of said

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51264 CRL.RP No. 1850 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

burden, accused had resorted to making suggestions in crossexamination were denied by complainant. Same would not be sufficient to upset presumption available under Section 138 of NI Act. Consequently, conviction of accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act is in accordance with law. It is also seen both Courts adverted into entire material on record and arrived at reasoned findings. Thus, grounds for interference made out. Revision petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed .

¶41

In view of dismissal of revision petition pending application stands dismissed.

¶42

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶43

Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

K G Suresh v. Smt Ramya M a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K G Suresh v. Smt Ramya M a

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 Raghunandan G a Vs Sri Santhosh Kukmar S

Smt. B Rajeshwari Vs Smt. Jayalakshmi

Sri Theju Kumar Vs Mallesh M

Cv Projects Private Limited Vs Sri. Nagraj Shetty. K

Cv Projects Private Limited Vs Smt. N. Sudha Naik

Smt. Pushpavathi, Vs Sri. Ravikumar. S.