Dismissed¶54

Smt B K Pushpa v. Sri M U Ganesh

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025CRL.RP/639/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.RP No. 639 of 2023, High Court of Karnataka, decided 12.11.2025 by Ravi V Hosmani J; revision under S.397/401 Cr.P.C. against conviction under S.138 NI Act dismissed; S.139 presumption not excluded by mere denial of complainant's financial capacity (Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069; APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers, (2020) 12 SCC 724); non-CTR cheque legal tender until 2022 per RBI circular; IT-return omission insufficient to rebut presumption; bank balances proved capacity; no perversity; respondent served and unrepresented; Kodagu (Madikeri/Virajpet) courts below.

What did the court decide?

None; revision petition dismissed, upholding the concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act. ¶54

Smt B K Pushpa Vs Sri M U Ganesh — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; revision petition dismissed, upholding the concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings convicting the petitioner (accused) for the offence under Section 138 NI Act suffer from perversity warranting interference in revision. +3 more

¶43

Court's answer

Petitioner failed to establish that the impugned judgments suffer from perversity as to warrant interference in revision; the revision petition was therefore dismissed.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Denial or dispute of the complainant's financial capacity does not exclude the presumption under Section 139 NI Act; the presumption is rebuttable and, once rebutted, the onus shifts back to the complainant (as per Sanjabij Tari, explaining APS Forex).

¶44

Key takeaways

Balances of Rs.6,02,920/-, Rs.4,47,870/- and Rs.93,552/- in the complainant's accounts in October 2016 (Exs.P.7 to 9) dispelled any doubt about his financial capacity to lend Rs.6,00,000/-.ratio¶49
Non-CTR (and Non-MICR) cheques continued to be legal tender until their discontinuation in 2022 as per RBI circular; the contention that Ex.P.1 was stale therefore failed.ratio¶45
Accused failed to lead any evidence to establish that Ex.P.1 was issued as security for a loan of Rs.15,000/- in 2006, and it was not established that the trial court's observation to that effect was contrary to the material on record.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ravi V Hosmani J) dismissed a criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against concurrent convictions under Section 138 NI Act (cheque no.060167 dated 03.03.2017 for Rs.6,00,000/- dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds'). Held: (i) mere denial or dispute of the complainant's financial capacity does not exclude the presumption under Section 139 NI Act — the presumption is rebuttable and, once rebutted, the onus shifts back to the complainant (following Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, which explained APS Forex Services (P) Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 724); (ii) per RBI circular, non-CTR and non-MICR cheques remained legal tender until discontinuation in 2022, so the staleness plea failed, and no evidence showed the cheque was security for a Rs.15,000/- loan of 2006; (iii) omission of the lending from income tax returns alone does not rebut the presumptions — the accused could have examined Income Tax or Bank officials, and account balances of Rs.6,02,920/-, Rs.4,47,870/- and Rs.93,552/- (October 2016) proved financial capacity. No perversity in the concurrent findings; revision dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45981 CRL.RP No. 639 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 639 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT B.K.PUSHPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O CHANDRU, R/A GARAGANDOOR VILLAGE, MADAPURA SOMWERPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI M.U GANESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE M.K.UNNIKRISHNANA, R/O SUNKADDAKATTE, VIRAJPETE TOWN, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.

¶13

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2023 IN THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5022/2019 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU - MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 09.07.2019 IN C.C.NO.297/2017 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT VIRAJPET, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/SWRESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:45981 CRL.RP No. 639 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu - Madikeri (sitting at Virajpet), in Crl.A.no.5022/2019 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.2019 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet, in

¶24

C.C.no.297/2017, this revision petition is filed.

¶25

Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel petitioner submitted that revision petition was by petitioner (accused) against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (' NI Act ', for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was a lab technician, running a diagnostic lab in Virajpet, beside complainant's shop viz., 'Prince Lottery Shop'. On 03.10.2016, accused borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- as hand loan for family needs and issued postdated cheque bearing no.060167 dated 03.03.2017 drawn on

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45981 CRL.RP No. 639 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Corporation Bank, Virajpet towards repayment. But on presentation, said cheque returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 14.03.2017. And even when demand notice dated 17.03.2017, got issued by complainant was duly served on 20.03.2017, accused failed to repay amount, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶29

On appearance, accused denied allegations and sought trial, whereupon complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P10. On appraisal of incriminating material, which was denied, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC. Thereafter accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D.7.

¶30

It was submitted, accused had set up various defence which though substantiated were overlooked and order of conviction passed. Despite, being challenged in appeal, same was confirmed without proper re-appreciation. Thus, orders impugned were perverse and warranted interference.

¶31

5. It was firstly submitted, even when accused had denied relationship of debtor and creditor and disputed financial

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:45981 CRL.RP No. 639 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

capacity of complainant to lend such heavy amount, even in reply to Demand Notice, complainant had failed to produce any material, firstly to establish his financial capacity to lend said amount to accused. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers , reported in (2020) 12 SCC 724 , it was submitted, on accused denying or disputing financial capacity of complainant to pay amount, onus would be on complainant to establish same with material.

¶36

In cross-examination of PW1, it was elicited lottery business was closed and complainant was vending vegetables and amount lent was not shown in income tax returns. It was further submitted, both Courts failed to notice that Ex.P1 was non-CTR cheque, but put up for collection only in year 2017, substantiating accused's contention that it was stale. On said grounds sought for allowing revision.

¶37

Respondent is served and unrepresented.

¶38

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶39

record.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:45981 CRL.RP No. 639 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings of conviction of accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. As noted above, challenge is mainly on ground of perversity of findings.

¶44

Insofar as first contention denying financial capacity of complainant to lend huge amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to accused, it is indeed seen that such contention is also urged in Ex.P.6-reply to demand notice. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, referring to decision in APS Forex (supra) observed that, it was not an authority for proposition that in case of denial of complainant's financial capacity, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would not be attracted and it was held that presumption under NI Act was rebuttable and when rebutted, onus would shift back to complainant.

¶45

Even, contention that Ex.P.1 was a non-CTR cheque and as such stale, would not hold much water as per circular of RBI, non-CTR (and Non-MICR) cheques continued to be legal tender until their discontinuation in 2022. Apart from above,

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45981 CRL.RP No. 639 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

trial Court observed that accused had failed to lead any evidence to establish Ex.P.1 was issued as security for availing loan of Rs.15,000/- in year 2006. It is not established that said observation was contrary to material on record.

¶49

Insofar as contentions based on admission that lending money was not included in IT returns. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra) has held to rebut presumptions under NI Act, it would be open for accused to examine Income Tax or Bank Officials and unless on reading of entire material would lead to an inference that complainant did not have wherewithal to lend amount as claimed, it would not be proper to withdraw presumption. In instant case, trial Court has observed that complainant had stated to be running lottery shop and after banning of said business, begun trading in ginger. Besides, Trial Court observed that Exs.P.7 to 9 showed that in month of October 2016, there was balance of Rs.6,02,920/-, Rs.4,47,870/- and Rs.93,552/- respectively in account of complainant. Same would dispel any doubt about financial capacity.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:45981 CRL.RP No. 639 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53