Dismissed¶52

Sri Hemanth Salian v. Sri Rathnakar Kotian

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2025CRL.RP/399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022; decided 24.10.2025 by Ravi V Hosmani J. Criminal revision under Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C. against concurrent convictions under S.138 NI Act (trial: C.C.No.697/2016, Civil Judge & JMFC Moodabidri, 30.06.2020; appeal: Crl.A.No.80/2020, III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, 10.01.2022) dismissed. Security-cheque defence rejected; S.139 presumption not upset by mere suggestions; financial-capacity challenge failed; no perversity or statutory infraction; Amit Kapoor (2012) 9 SCC 460 and Rangappa (2010) 11 SCC 441 relied on.

What did the court decide?

No infraction of any statutory requirements under Section 138 of the Act was urged, and no case of perversity was established; hence there were no grounds to entertain the revision petition against the concurrent findings. ¶52

Sri Hemanth Salian Vs Sri Rathnakar Kotian — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent judgments convicting the petitioner (accused) under Section 138 NI Act suffered from infraction of statutory provisions or perversity so as to warrant interference in revision. +2 more

¶44

Court's answer

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The accused's own contention that the cheque was issued as security for a loan obtained by his wife from the complainant admitted issuance of the cheque and attracted the presumption that it was issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

¶46

Key takeaways

Such presumption cannot be upset by mere suggestions; the accused failed to produce any material to substantiate his defence, and both courts were justified in rejecting the contention denying the legally enforceable debt.ratio¶46
Lack of financial capacity also cannot be established by mere suggestion; both courts noted the sufficient explanation that the complainant withdrew the amount from his bank account on the same day and paid it to the accused, and the account having been opened on the same day did not probablize any doubt.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. by accused against concurrent convictions under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri convicted the accused in C.C.No.697/2016 by order dated 30.06.2020, and the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru confirmed the conviction in Crl.A.No.80/2020 by judgment dated 10.01.2022. The complaint alleged that towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt of Rs.2 Lakhs the accused issued cheque no.257981 dated 01.09.2016 drawn on Sri Gokarnanath Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mulky Branch, which was dishonoured on 07.09.2016 with endorsement 'funds insufficient', and a statutory demand notice dated 26.09.2016 went unanswered. The defence that the cheque was issued as security for a loan taken by the accused's wife admitted issuance and attracted the presumption of a legally enforceable debt; such presumption cannot be upset by mere suggestions, and the accused led no rebuttal evidence and elicited no admissions. The contention that the complainant lacked financial capacity failed, since withdrawal from the bank account on the same day was a sufficient explanation and the account having been opened on the same day did not probablize doubt, being possibly an act of precaution. Relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 (scope of revisional interference confined to statutory infraction or perversity) and Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 (no mandatory rebuttal evidence required), the Court found no statutory infraction and no perversity and dismissed the revision petition.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022

¶2

¶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. 399 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI HEMANTH SALIAN S/O SHRIDHAR POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT MANDADI HOUSE, ATHIKARIBETTU POST, MOILOTTU MULKI, MANGALURU TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 103.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI RATHNAKAR KOTIAN S/O LATE CHANDU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MANDADI HOUSE, ATHIKARIBETTU POST, MOILOTTU MULKI, MANGALURU TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 154.

¶14

[BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M R., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.06.2020 MADE IN C.C.NO.697/2016 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT, MOODABIDRI, D.K. AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.80/2020 BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging judgment and order dated 10.01.2022 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl. A.no.80/2020 confirming order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2020 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri, D.K., in C.C.no.697/2016, this revision petition is filed.

¶24

Smt.Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, this petition was by accused challenging concurrent findings of conviction for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Act by accused. In complaint, it was alleged towards discharge of legally enforceable debt of Rs.2 Lakhs, accused had issued a cheque no.257981 dated 01.09.2016 drawn on Sri Gokarnanath Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mulky Branch, in favour of complainant. When presented for collection, said cheque returned

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

dishonoured with an endorsement dated 07.09.2016 'funds insufficient'. On receipt of endorsement, complainant had got issued statutory demand notice on 26.09.2016. Despite receipt of same, accused had failed either to reply or pay money, giving rise to cause of action for filing complaint.

¶29

It was further submitted, on appearance, accused had denied allegations and sought to be tried. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. Denial of incriminating material was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It was submitted, though accused did not lead any rebuttal evidence, he had set up substantial defence in cross-examination of complainant. Firstly, legally enforceable debt was disputed by denying any financial transaction with complainant. It was suggested that wife of accused had borrowed some money from complainant and had duly repaid same. As security for repayment, cheque was issued. Same was misused to file false complaint. It was submitted, as there was failure to produce any material to establish financial transaction with accused, order of conviction was unsustainable.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Apart from above, even financial capacity of complainant to lend such huge amount was also disputed. It was submitted, even as per complainant, he had withdrawn money from Bank and paid it to accused. His admission that said bank account was opened on very same day would cast serious doubt and substantiate contention of accused that cheque issued as security for loan taken by his wife earlier was being misused. It was submitted, above factors were sufficient to upset presumption under Section 139 of Act. However, both Courts had failed to appreciate same in proper perspective, leading to perverse conclusions calling for interference.

¶34

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶35

record.

¶36

This revision petition is by accused against

¶37

concurrent judgments of conviction of both Courts for offence punishable under Section 138 of Act.

¶38

Perusal of judgments passed by both Courts would

¶39

reveal that they have after due reference to material on record and by assigning detailed reasons arrived at findings. Hon'ble

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander

¶44

& 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. As per decision in

¶45

Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 , there is no mandatory requirement for accused to lead rebuttal evidence to establish probable defence and same can be achieved from evidence led by complainant.

¶46

Insofar as first contention, denying legally enforceable debt, very contention of accused that cheque in question was issued as security for loan obtained by his wife from complainant would admit issuance of cheque attracting presumption that same was issued towards legally enforceable debt. It is settled principle of law that such presumption cannot be upset by mere suggestions. Admittedly, accused failed to produce any material to substantiate his defence. Despite cross-examination of accused, no admissions are elicited. Therefore, both Courts would be justified in rejecting such contention.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Likewise, lack of financial capacity also cannot be

¶51

established by mere suggestion. In any case, both Courts have noted sufficient explanation that complainant had withdrawn amount from bank account on same day and paid it to accused. Merely on ground that said bank account was opened on same day would not probablize any doubt. On other hand, it could be as an act of precaution.

¶52

There are no contentions urged about infraction with any statutory requirements under Section 138 of Act. No case of perversity is established. Hence, no grounds to entertain revision. It is accordingly dismissed .

¶53

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri Hemanth Salian v. Sri Rathnakar Kotian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hemanth Salian v. Sri Rathnakar Kotian

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

Sanjeevappa R Vs City Corporation, Shivamogga

Sri Prasanna Kumar M Vs Smt G Vijaya Srinivasan

Sathyendra Padiyara Manuru Vs Hardik Shah

Smt. Shashikala S Vs Smt. Aruna Devi a

Smt. Shashikala S Vs Smt. Aruna Devi a

Sri Nagaraj v Vs Sri T M Kempanna