Dismissed¶18

Sri Ramachandra v. Sri Shivanna

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025CRL.RP/282/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act; cheque dishonour endorsement 'Account in-operative'; non-MICR cheques legal tender till 2022; presumption under NI Act; prudent man standard for defence; concurrent findings; revisional scope confined to perversity; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460; Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.; CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022; High Court of Karnataka; revision dismissed; hand-loan Rs.3,00,000/-; three cheques Rs.1,00,000/- each nos. 090206-090208; Vijaya Bank JLB Road Branch; Central Bank of India; V JMFC Mysuru C.C.No.227/2020; Crl.A.No.96/2021; Mysuru.

What did the court decide?

None; revision petition dismissed and the concurrent convictions under Section 138 NI Act left undisturbed. ¶18

Sri Ramachandra Vs Sri Shivanna — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; revision petition dismissed and the concurrent convictions under Section 138 NI Act left undisturbed.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court suffered from perversity so as to warrant interference in this revision petition. +5 more

¶11

Court's answer

None of the grounds urged by the petitioner established perversity in the findings concurrently recorded by both Courts; applying the confined revisional scope indicated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the revision petition was dismissed.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The plea that the cheques in question were given as security for an earlier loan and were misused by the complainant failed: apart from suggestion, there was no material on record to substantiate it, and the trial Court had rightly rejected it.

¶13

Key takeaways

The objection that the non-MICR cheques were not legal tender was rejected: non-MICR cheques, though discontinued, were clarified to remain legal tender until their total discontinuation in year 2022.ratio¶14
The contention that the account had become inactive from 13.09.2018 was rejected as that was after the dates of issuance of the cheques; further, the accused issuing cheques on three different dates was not sufficient to upset the presumption available under the NI Act.ratio¶15
The standard for testing the probability of the defence is that of a normal prudent man; merely because a defence was a possibility would not upset the presumption under the NI Act, and since the complainant knew the accused for several years, failure to obtain any documents would not appear unusual.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ravi V Hosmani, J.) dismissed a criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. by the accused against concurrent convictions under Section 138 NI Act — trial Court (V JMFC, Mysuru, C.C.No.227/2020, judgment dated 16.03.2021) affirmed by IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru (Crl.A.No.96/2021, judgment dated 10.12.2021). The case concerned three cheques (nos. 090206–090208) of Rs.1,00,000/- each drawn on Vijaya Bank, issued towards repayment of an alleged hand-loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, returned with endorsement 'Account in-operative' dated 13.09.2018. Relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Court held interference with concurrent findings in revision is confined to infraction of statutory provisions or perversity. All grounds rejected: (i) cheques-as-security-for-repaid-loan/misuse — bare suggestion, no material; (ii) non-MICR cheques — though discontinued, clarified to remain legal tender till 2022; (iii) account inactive from 13.09.2018 — post-dates cheque issuance, and staggered issuance on three dates insufficient to upset NI Act presumption; (iv) no documents obtained while lending — not unusual between persons known for years, defence to be tested by prudent-man standard; (v) complainant's financial capacity — mere suggestions without corroborating material.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 282 OF 2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.2284, 2^ND CROSS, D BLOCK, KANAKADASANAGARA, DATAGALLI, MYSORE - 570 022.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

[BY SRI MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE (VC)]

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI SHIVANNA S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.1031, 4/9 MAIN, E AND F BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 022.

¶16

[BY SRI G. KRISHNA REVANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHISHEK RAMESH, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.96/2021 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2021 PASSED BY THE V JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS MYSURU IN C.C.NO.227/2020.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging order dated 10.12.2021 passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.96/2021 confirming judgment dated 16.03.2021 passed by V JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.no.227/2020, this revision petition is filed.

¶26

Sri BK Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petition was against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was known to him and in June 2017, when accused requested hand-loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for legal necessities agreeing to repay same with 18% interest, complainant lent said amount. And when complainant demanded repayment, accused had issued three cheques bearing no.090206 to 090208 dated 30.07.2018, 05.08.2008 and 30.08.2008 respectively for Rs.1,00,000/each drawn on Vijaya Bank, JLB Road Branch, Mysuru. And when said cheques were presented for collection through his

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

banker Central Bank of India, Mysuru, they returned with endorsements dated 13.09.2018 'Account in-operative' and even when legal notice dated 05.10.2018 got issued by complainant was duly served, accused neither complied with demand nor replied, thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶31

It was submitted, on appearance, when accused appeared, pleaded not guilty and sought trial, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.17. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. There was no rebuttal evidence.

¶32

It was submitted, accused had taken up various defence and substantiated same in cross-examination of PW.1. Without proper appreciation, trial Court passed order of conviction. Though, appeal was preferred, same was dismissed without proper re-appreciation. Thus, impugned judgments suffer from perversity calling for interference.

¶33

It was submitted, entire prosecution was on

¶34

incorrect facts and assertions. It was submitted, accused had

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant in year 2017 and

¶39

same was duly repaid. It was submitted, cheques in question were given as security for said loan. Instead of returning said cheques, complainant had misused same and filed false case.

¶40

It was submitted, admission elicited during crossexamination of PW.1 that cheques in question did not bear name of accused would indicate that they were non-MICR cheques in use during year 2017 and which were dis-continued from usage as per directions of RBI in year 2018.

¶41

Moreover, account itself become inactive from 13.09.2018. But, as per complainant, cheques were given by accused, when complainant visited accused home on three different dates i.e. 30.07.2018, 05.08.2018 and 30.08.2018, without explanation why they were not got issued on same day or not presenting first cheque for collection immediately after issue. This would cast serious doubt about transactions. It was further submitted, admission was elicited in cross-examination of PW1 on 04.02.2020 that apart from cheque no other documents were obtained, which would appear unusual while lending huge amount of money. At same time, it was

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

submitted, complainant failed to establish his financial capacity to lend such huge amount to accused. It was submitted, both Courts had failed to appreciate said factors and thereby committed serious irregularities, which called for allowing revision.

¶46

On other hand, Sri G Krishna Revanth, learned counsel appearing for Sri Abhishek Ramesh, advocate for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently convicted accused, leaving no scope for interference.

¶47

Without prejudice, it was submitted, accused had failed to produce material to substantiate earlier loan, its repayment and issuance of cheques as security for said loan. Insofar as cheques being non-MICR cheques, it was submitted, RBI had clarified that such cheques though stopped being issued in year 2018, would continue to be legal tender, until their total discontinuation in year 2022. It was submitted, even failure of accused to submit reply to statutory demand notice would dispel contentions of accused herein. On said grounds sought for dismissal of petition.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶51

record.

¶52

This revision petition is by accused against concurrent finding of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, on specific grounds.

¶53

Perusal of impugned judgments reveal that both Courts have after due reference of entire material on record passed judgments assigning detailed reasons and that findings are concurrent. 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 cases involving infraction of statutory provisions or findings established to suffer from perversity.

¶54

Insofar as first contention that cheques in question were given as security for earlier loan and misuse of such cheques, except suggestion, there is no material placed on record to substantiate same and rightly rejected by trial Court.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Insofar as contention about cheques being non-

¶59

MICR and not being legal tender, it was submitted, non-MICR cheques, though discontinued were clarified to be legal tender, until their discontinuation in year 2022.

¶60

And contention that account had become inactive from 13.09.2018, has to be rejected as same was after date of issuance of cheques. Further contention that accused issued cheques when complainant visited house of accused on three different dates i.e. 30.07.2018, 05.08.2018 and 30.08.2018 would also not be sufficient to upset presumption available under NI Act.

¶61

Further, standard to be applied for testing probability of defence would be that of normal prudent man and unless same appeals to Court as reasonable, merely on ground that defence adopted was a possibility, would not upset presumption under NI Act. In view of same, when complainant has stated that he knew accused since several years, failure to obtain any documents, would not appear unusual.

¶62

Even insofar as contention doubting financial capacity to lend money, it is seen that same is based on mere

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

suggestions, without any corroborating material and liable for

¶67

rejection.

¶68

Thus, none of grounds urged would establish

¶69

perversity of findings recorded by both Courts. Revision petition

¶70

is accordingly dismissed .

¶71

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶72

Psg*

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Issues for consideration

6 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court suffered from perversity so as to warrant interference in this revision petition.¶11
The court held
None of the grounds urged by the petitioner established perversity in the findings concurrently recorded by both Courts; applying the confined revisional scope indicated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the revision petition was dismissed.ratio¶18
2.
Whether the three subject cheques were issued merely as security for an earlier loan said to have been repaid, and were misused by the complainant to file a false case.¶13
The court held
The plea that the cheques in question were given as security for an earlier loan and were misused by the complainant failed: apart from suggestion, there was no material on record to substantiate it, and the trial Court had rightly rejected it.ratio¶13
3.
Whether the cheques being non-MICR cheques discontinued from usage meant that they were not legal tender.¶14
The court held
The objection that the non-MICR cheques were not legal tender was rejected: non-MICR cheques, though discontinued, were clarified to remain legal tender until their total discontinuation in year 2022.ratio¶14
4.
Whether the account having become inactive from 13.09.2018 and the issuance of cheques on three different dates (30.07.2018, 05.08.2018, 30.08.2018) cast serious doubt on the transaction sufficient to displace the presumption under the NI Act.¶15
The court held
The contention that the account had become inactive from 13.09.2018 was rejected as that was after the dates of issuance of the cheques; further, the accused issuing cheques on three different dates was not sufficient to upset the presumption available under the NI Act.ratio¶15
5.
What standard applies for testing the probability of the accused's defence, and whether failure to obtain any documents while lending the alleged amount was unusual.¶16
The court held
The standard for testing the probability of the defence is that of a normal prudent man; merely because a defence was a possibility would not upset the presumption under the NI Act, and since the complainant knew the accused for several years, failure to obtain any documents would not appear unusual.ratio¶16
6.
Whether the complainant failed to establish his financial capacity to lend the alleged amount.¶17
The court held
The contention doubting the complainant's financial capacity to lend the amount was based on mere suggestions, without any corroborating material, and was liable to be rejected.ratio¶17

Sri Ramachandra v. Sri Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramachandra v. Sri Shivanna

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

Mr. Keshav Daga Vs Miss. Nilisha Maheshwari

State of Karnataka Vs Ananda

Sri. Keshav G Vs Smt. Kala v

Sri Shashank K Vs M/S Canfin Homes Limited

Mr S.Mohammed Asif Vs Mr Abdul Shukur Kota

Sri. K N Ramachandra Vs Sri. Venkatesh M R