Dismissed¶45

Nimishambha Enterprises v. Sri. Chikkamakegowda

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025CRL.RP/187/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act conviction upheld in criminal revision; scope of ss.397/401 CrPC over concurrent findings per Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460; s.139 presumption versus chit-security defence; FDRs Exhibits-D1 to D13 as proof of financial capacity; DW-1 admissions; no perversity established; CRL.RP dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Though the accused set up a defence that the cheque was security for a chit transaction, the defence failed to probablize: DW-1 admitted that Exhibits-D1 to D13 were needed as performance guarantee for tender works and could not be withdrawn until conclusion of the tender period, and the accused failed to examine any other chit subscriber to substantiate that the complainant would collect signed blank cheques as security. ¶42

Nimishambha Enterprises Vs Sri. Chikkamakegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the finding that Exhibit-P1 cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt (attracting presumption under Section 139 NI Act) is perverse, given the accused's contention that the cheque was collected as security for a chit subscription and that FDRs Exhibits-D1 to D13 showed sufficient funds and no need to borrow. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

DW-1's specific admission in cross-examination that Exhibit-P1 was from her account and bears her signature, together with her contention that it was issued as security for a chit transaction amount, would attract the presumption under Section 139 NI Act; the contention that Exhibits-D1 to D13 (FDRs) showed no need to borrow was the proffered rebuttal, which did not displace the presumption.

¶40

Key takeaways

The trial Court referred to the entire material on record and arrived at reasoned conclusions not established to be suffering from perversity; the Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire material, concurred with the trial Court and dismissed the appeal; hence no ground of perversity in the concurrent findings was established and the revision petition, being without merit, was dismissed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Ravi V Hosmani, J.) dismissed CRL.RP No.187/2024, filed under Sections 397/401 CrPC by Nimishambha Enterprises (accused/petitioner), challenging concurrent convictions under Section 138 NI Act: trial conviction dated 21.04.2023 in C.C.No.10091/2021 (VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru) confirmed in appeal dated 22.11.2023 in Crl.A.No.179/2023 (IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru). The complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleged borrowal of Rs.5,00,000/- repayable in five months against post-dated cheque no.787662 dated 29.06.2021 (Vijaya Bank, later Bank of Baroda, Mandya Main Branch), dishonoured on 30.06.2021 with endorsement 'insufficient funds'; demand notice dated 29.07.2021 followed. The accused's defence - that the cheque was collected merely as security for a chit subscription, and that FDRs Exhibits-D1 to D13 proved financial capacity and negated any need to borrow - failed: DW-1 admitted the FDRs were required as performance guarantee for tender works until conclusion of the tender period, no other chit subscriber was examined, and DW-1's admission that Exhibit-P1 was from her account bearing her signature attracted the Section 139 presumption. Relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (revisional jurisdiction over concurrent findings confined to perversity or statutory infraction), the Court found the trial Court's reasoned conclusions perverse-free and the Appellate Court's re-appreciation concordant; the revision petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 187 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NIMISHAMBHA ENTERPRISES, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT SHWETHAS M C., W/O SRI MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, GROUND FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SAKARAJA N.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. CHIKKAMAKEGOWDA, S/O SRI LATE HUCCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.1269, SAHUKAR CHENNAIAH ROAD, T K LAYOUT, JANATHANAGAR, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESHCHANDRA B N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 22.11.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.179/2023B. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 21.04.2023 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU IN C.C.NO.10091/2021. C. ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging judgment dated 22.11.2023 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.179/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.2023 passed by VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.no.10091/2021, this revision petition is filed.

¶23

Sri Sokoroja N.C., learned counsel appearing for Sri Sumanth L Bharadwaj, advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that present proceedings were initiated by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (' CrPC ', for short) alleging that accused was known to him since 10 years and borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant assuring to repay it within

¶24

five months and issued post dated cheque bearing no.787662 dated 29.06.2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, (later Bank of Baroda), Mandya Main Branch, Mandya, which when presented for collection on 30.06.2021, returned dishonored with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and even when demand notice dated 29.07.2021 got issued by

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

complainant was served on accused on 04.08.2021, she failed to repay amount and on other hand had got issued untenable reply on 16.08.2021 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, whereupon, complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P12. On being explained incriminating material, which she denied, her statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused led defence evidence examining herself as DW-1 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D14.

¶29

It was submitted, accused had setup substantial defence alleging that complainant was running Chit business and cheques in question were collected as security for Chit subscription amount. It was contended that accused was financially sound and there was no need for borrowing money. It was submitted, Exhibits-D1 to D13 - Fixed Deposit Receipts (' FDR ', for short) would substantiate financial capacity and would be sufficient to upset presumption. But, trial Court as well as Appellate Court based only on presumption under

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Section 139 of NI Act, convicted accused which was perverse On said ground sought for allowing revision petition.

¶34

On other hand, Sri B.N. Maheshchandra, learned counsel for respondent (complainant) opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently held accused had committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and same could not be interfered with by re-appreciation of evidence in revision petition. On said ground sought for dismissal of revision petition.

¶35

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments.

¶36

This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. , reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460 , has held that jurisdiction of Revisional Court against concurrent findings would normally be limited to examining whether findings suffer from perversity or whether there was any infraction with any statutory provisions.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Perversity of findings is alleged firstly, insofar as finding that issuance of Exhibit-P1 - cheque was towards legally enforceable debt. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court referred to specific admission by DW-1 in cross-examination that Exhibit-P1 was from her account and has her signature. Besides it is contended that Exhibit-P1 was issued as security for Chit transaction amount. Above factors would attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, which is sought to be rebutted by contending that there was no need for accused to borrow money as Exhibits-D1 to D13 - FDRs would indicate sufficient money was available with accused.

¶41

However, trial Court has noted admission by DW-1

¶42

that at time of bidding for tender works, there was need for submitting Exhibits-D1 to D13 towards performance guarantee and accused could not withdraw said amounts until conclusion of tender period. It also observed that accused failed to examine any other Chit subscriber to substantiate that complainant would collect signed blank cheques as security. Above material would indicate, though accused had setup defence but failed to probablize same.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

It is also seen that while passing impugned judgment, trial Court had referred to entire material available on record and arrived at reasoned conclusions, which are not established to be suffering from perversity. Even Appellate Court re-appreciated entire material on record, concurred with trial Court and dismissed appeal. Hence, no ground of perversity with findings of trial Court and Appellate Court are established. Revision petition is without merit and is

¶46

dismissed .

¶47

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶48

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Nimishambha Enterprises v. Sri. Chikkamakegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimishambha Enterprises v. Sri. Chikkamakegowda

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 K. S. Kumar Vs Mr. Sathish

Sri. Arjun Kulkarni Vs Sri. Chandrashekar J

Madhu Vs State of Karnataka

K S Ganesh Vs a Govindaraju

Sri. Puttanayaka Vs Sri. Chandrakhantha

Sri G T Ranganatha Sharma Vs Sri K Munirathnam Reddy