Dismissed¶58

Mr Vincent D Costa v. Mr Anil Mantal

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2025CRL.RP/494/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), CRL.RP No. 494 of 2023, decided 09.12.2025 by Justice Ravi V Hosmani: S.138 NI Act conviction upheld in revision; security-cheque defence fails where accused neither answered demand notice nor testified and issued no stop-payment instructions; S.139 presumption sustained per Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197; perversity test applied to concurrent lower-court findings; complaint under S.200 CrPC; dishonour endorsements 'Account Closed' and 'insufficient funds'/'not stop payment'; account confirmation letters Exs.P8-P11.

What did the court decide?

Accused neither replied to the demand notice nor stepped into the witness-box; this invites an inference against the accused. ¶52

Mr Vincent D Costa Vs Mr Anil Mantal — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings convicting the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act suffered from perversity so as to call for interference in revision. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

Accused neither replied to the demand notice nor stepped into the witness-box; this invites an inference against the accused.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Cross-examination of PW.1 elicited nothing that would make the defence probable; the sole suggestion that the cheques were issued for security purpose in year 2010 was denied.

¶53

Key takeaways

If the cheques had been security for a cleared earlier transaction, the accused would have instructed the bank to stop payment or sought their return; the absence of either attracts an inference against the accused.ratio¶53
Even if the cheque were issued as security, admission of the accused's signature and its issuance attracts the Section 139 NI Act presumption in favour of the complainant per the ratio in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar; mere denied suggestions cannot upset that presumption.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC by accused Vincent D'Costa challenging concurrent convictions under S.138 NI Act — trial conviction dated 06.04.2022 in C.C.no.1289/2016 (J.M.F.C (V Court), Mangaluru) affirmed on appeal dated 13.02.2023 in Crl.A.no.78/2022 (II Additional District and Session Judge, D.K., Mangaluru) — arising from dishonour of four cheques totalling Rs.1,85,000/- issued towards part payment of Rs.1,91,556/- due for marble and granite supplies. Defence that the cheques were security for a cleared 2010 transaction was rejected: the accused gave no reply to the demand notice, did not step into the witness-box, cross-examination of PW.1 elicited nothing probablizing the defence, and absence of stop-payment instructions or a notice seeking return of the cheques told against him. Following Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, admission of signature and issuance of the cheques attracted the S.139 NI Act presumption, which denied suggestions alone could not rebut. Concurrent findings held free of perversity; revision petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51873 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 494 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. VINCENT D'COSTA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE JEROME D'COSTA R/AT DREAM KITCHEN AND INTERIORS ESSEL WILCON, BELOW RADHA MEDICALS BENDOORWELL CIRCLE, MANGALORE-01.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MISS PRASANNA K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

MR. ANIL MANTAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O O.P. MANTAL R/AT PROPRIETOR OF M/S MAKARANA MARBLE AND GRANITE CENTRE NH 66, HOSABETTU-574227 MANGALORE, D.K.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.04.2022 IN C.C.NO.1289/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C. (V COURT), MANGALURU, D.K AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.02.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.78/2022 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:51873 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging judgment dated 13.02.2023 passed by II Additional District and Session Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.no.78/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order

¶24

of sentence dated 06.04.2022 passed by J.M.F.C (V Court), Mangaluru, D.K., in C.C.no.1289/2016, this revision petition is filed.

¶25

Miss Prasanna K., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that impugned proceedings were initiated on a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (' CrPC ', for short) stating that complainant was Proprietor of M/s. Makarana Marble and Granite dealing in sale of Marble, Granite Slab and Tiles etc., where accused purchased material on credit

¶26

basis as under.

¶27

Invoice Nos.	Date	Amount
478	29.10.2014	Rs.15,429/-
552	15.12.2014	Rs.3,950/-
572	23.12.2014	Rs.2,748/-
636	02.02.2015	Rs.78,316/-
745	21.03.2015	Rs.91,113/-

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:51873 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

It was stated as per above invoices, accused had

¶32

purchased material worth Rs.1,91,556/- and same was due. It was further stated that said balance was confirmed by accused in letters of confirmation dated 14.07.2016 undertaking to pay said amount before 15.09.2016 and towards part payment of said amount, accused had issued four cheques for total sum of

¶33

Rs.1,85,000/- as under.

¶34

Sl. nos.	Cheque nos. & Date	Amount	Bank
a	024215 Dtd:21.10.2016	Rs.50,000/-	Drawn on
b	024216 Dtd:21.10.2016	Rs.50,000/	Axis Bank,
			Mangalore
c	024217 Dtd:24.10.2016	Rs.50,000/	Branch,
d	024218 Dtd:24.10.2016	Rs.35,000/	Mangalore

¶35

And when said cheques were presented, they returned dishonoured with endorsement 'Account Closed' on 26.10.2016 and even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 01.11.2016 was served, accused failed to repay amount, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (' NI Act ', for short).

¶36

It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Therefore, complainant deposed as

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:51873 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

PW.1 and got marked documents as Exhibits-P1 to P23. On being explained incriminating material, accused denied same and did not choose to lead evidence.

¶41

It was submitted, accused had taken substantial defence firstly, claiming that cheque in question was issued as security for a transaction in year 2010, which was cleared, but cheque misused by complainant to file present proceedings. Secondly, Exs.P8 and P9 - account confirmation letters did not refer to particular transactions i.e. invoice numbers and therefore confirmation or acknowledgment cannot be stated to be with regard to complainant's claim in question. Therefore finding of both Courts that issuance of Exs.P1 to P4 - cheques was towards legally enforceable debt was contrary to material on record and as such, liable for interference and sought for allowing revision petition.

¶42

On other hand, Sri Rakesh Kini, learned counsel for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently held accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, by reasoned findings and same did not call for interference. Insofar as contention

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:51873 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

that cheque was issued as security, it was submitted, there was absolutely no material to substantiate same. On other hand, complainant had not only produced account confirmation letters dated 31.01.2015 and 31.03.2016 as per Exs.P8 and P9, which bore acknowledgment/affirmation by accused, but had also produced separate hand written acknowledgments as per Exs.P10 and P11.

¶47

Apart from above, complainant had produced invoices, whereunder accused was required to make payment and E-Sugama extracts for dispatch as well as extracts of Cash book, Ledger Extract and Audit report maintained by complainant in course of his business. These documents would substantiate transactions. It was submitted, mere adoption of defence denying transaction without producing any specific material would not be sufficient to upset presumption in favour of complainant under Section 139 of NI Act. Therefore, no case of perversity was established and revision petition was without merit.

¶48

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶49

judgments and record.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51873 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, on grounds of perversity, firstly, that cheque in question was issued as security for transaction in year 2010 which was cleared, but cheque was misused. Admittedly, accused did not issue reply to demand notice, nor stepped into witness-box. Same would invite an inference against accused.

¶53

Further, cross-examination of PW.1 does not indicate any elicitation as would probablize defence setup. Indeed, there is a suggestion about issuance of Exs.P1 to P4 - cheques for security purpose in year 2010, which is denied. It is also seen, reason for dishonour of cheques is 'insufficient funds' and for 'not stop payment'. In case, cheques in question were issued as security for an earlier transaction which was cleared, accused would have issued instructions to Bank for stopping payment on said cheques or issued notice for their return. Absence of same would also attract inference against accused.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:51873 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

On other hand, contention about issuance of cheque as security for earlier transaction would admit signature of accused on cheque as well as its issuance to complainant. Same in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 , attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, in favour of complainant. Merely by making suggestions which are denied, said presumption cannot be upset.

¶58

Moreover, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court has not only taken note of above factors and found claim of complainant being consistent and nothing material having been elicited in cross-examination of PW.1. Therefore, findings of trial Court and Appellate Court in favour of complainant, convicting accused based on presumption cannot be stated to be suffering from perversity i.e., finding without basis or finding being contrary to material on record. No ground for interference made out, revision petition is dismissed .

¶59

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

¶61

GRD

Mr Vincent D Costa v. Mr Anil Mantal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Vincent D Costa v. Mr Anil Mantal

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

Shivareddy Vs Narayana Reddy

Smt Sushma Dhwarakanath Vs Smt K N Jayalakshmi

K Balasubramaniam Vs Pratap Singh

State of Karnataka Vs H.N Prabhakar

Sri D Anbu Rose Vs Sri Krishnan

Sri Vinay Kumar C Vs Sri Arun Kumar M N