Dismissed¶48

B S Manjunatha Rai v. M N Vanajakshi

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025CRL.RP/780/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act conviction upheld; Karnataka High Court (Ravi V Hosmani, J.) dismisses CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023 (decided 14.11.2025) against concurrent judgments in C.C.No.597/2019 and Crl.A.No.84/2021; Section 139 presumption not rebutted; contradictory defence (PACL plot vs Agrigold shares); cheque drawn in complainant's name; no perversity in concurrent findings.

What did the court decide?

The accused's contradictory suggestions in cross-examination (that the cheque was for a PACL plot, then for shares in Agrigold Company) diluted the thrust of his defence; further, the cheque admittedly issued in the complainant's name contradicts his version, since a cheque for a site or shares would not be in her name, and there was neither explanation nor any suggestion that words other than the signature on the cheque were filled in by the complainant.

B S Manjunatha Rai Vs M N Vanajakshi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent judgments convicting the petitioner (accused) under Section 138 NI Act suffered from perversity, on the contention that there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused and no material was produced by the complainant to substantiate the sale of coffee. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

On appreciation of the entire material, both Courts below had arrived at reasoned conclusions; accordingly, no case of perversity or of a finding contrary to any provision was made out.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

¶41

Key takeaways

Admission about issuance of Ex.P.1 to the complainant attracts the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act in her favour; although the presumption was sought to be rebutted, the defence set up and the efforts of the accused were insufficient to upset the presumption.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. by the accused against the concurrent judgments of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Madikeri (C.C.No.597/2019, dated 06.11.2021) and the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kodagu (Crl.A.No.84/2021, dated 30.03.2023) convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the complaint of M N Vanajakshi regarding cheque no.631932 dated 20.10.2018 (Canara Bank, Sunticoppa Branch) for Rs.70,000/- towards the balance price of 25 bags of coffee, dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The defence that the cheque was issued for a PACL India Ltd. plot (with a contradictory suggestion of Agrigold shares) was undermined by the accused's inconsistent stand and by the cheque being drawn in the complainant's own name; the admitted issuance of the cheque attracted the Section 139 presumption, which the defence failed to displace. Both courts' findings were held reasoned, with no perversity; the revision was dismissed. (Ravi V Hosmani, J.; decided 14.11.2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46661 CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 780 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B S MANJUNATHA RAI, S/O SHANTHAPPA RAI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O ANDAGOVE VILLAGE AND POST, SUNTICOPPA, SOMWARPET - 571 236.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

M N VANAJAKSHI W/O NANAIAH M M., W/O C. UTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O ANDAGOVE VILLAGE AND POST, SUNTICOPPA, SOMWARPET - 571 236.

¶14

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.84/2021 DATED 30.03.2023 AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.597/2019, DATED 06.11.2021 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46661 CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Challenging judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by Prl. Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in Crl.A.no.84/2001 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.11.2021 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Madikeri, in C.C.no.5997/2019, this revision petition is filed.

¶22

Sri R Shashidhara, learned counsel for petitioner submitted petition is against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent(complainant) had filed a private complaint against accused herein alleging that accused was known to complainant since several years and on 10.10.2018 accused had purchased 25 bags of coffee at rate of Rs.3,000/- per bag by paying Rs.5,000/- in cash and towards balance of Rs.70,000/- given a cheque no.631932 dated 20.10.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Sunticoppa Branch, Somawarpet Taluk, which when presented for collection on 17.01.2019 returned dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' and despite service of demand notice on

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:46661 CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

13.02.2019, accused failed to repay amount and thereby committed offence.

¶27

It was submitted on appearance, accused denied

¶28

charges and sought to be tried. Thereafter complainant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. It was submitted, accused had taken various defence and substantiated same in cross-examination of complainant, firstly on ground that Ex.P.1-cheque was issued for purchase of plot in PACL India Ltd., Mysore of which complainant was stated to be an agent and secondly even when accused had denied and disputed transactional relationship with complainant as claimed, complainant had failed to produce any material to show that she had sold coffee to accused. It was submitted, on receipt of demand notice-Ex.P.3, accused had issued reply as per Ex.P.6 specifically taking said defence. Despite same, since no material was placed, adverse inference ought to have been drawn and presumption under Section 139 of NI Act ought to have been raised. On said ground, learned counsel submitted

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:46661 CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

that impugned judgment of conviction by trial Court confirmed by first appellate Court suffered from perversity and sought for setting aside of same.

¶33

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶34

judgments and as well as copies of depositions and exhibits are made available fo0r perusal of Court by learned counsel for accused.

¶35

This revision petition is by accused against concurrent finding convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Main ground of challenge is alleged findings suffered from perversity. It is firstly contended that there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused and there was no material produced by complainant to substantiate same. In this regard reliance is also placed on defence taken that in Ex.P.6-reply notice was issued for some other transaction.

¶36

Indeed, it is complainant's version that Ex.P.1 was given to her towards payment of balance amount for purchase of 25 bags coffee on 10.10.2018 by accused. In Ex.P.6 accused

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:46661 CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

has denied/disputed said transaction and claimed cheque was issued to complainant for purchase of plot from PACL India Ltd., Mysuru, in which complainant was an agent.

¶41

But, in cross-examination, apart from said suggestion which is denied accused made contradictory suggestion that cheque was issued for purchase of shares in Agrigold Company. This would dilute thrust of defence. That apart, admittedly cheque is issued in name of complainant which would contradict version of accused. If cheque were to be issued for site or purchase of shares, same would not be in name of complainant. There is neither explanation nor any suggestion made to complainant in cross-examination that words other than signature on cheque were filled by complainant himself.

¶42

Insofar as failure to produce any material to establish sale of coffee, admission about issuance of Ex.P.1 to complainant would attract statutory presumption under Section 139 of NI Act in favour of complainant. Though same is rebutted, defence set up and efforts by accused are insufficient to upset presumption. Perusal of impugned judgments would

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:46661 CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

indicate that on appreciation of entire material, both Courts had arrived at reasoned conclusion. Thus, no case of perversity or

¶47

finding being contrary to any provision is made out.

¶48

Revision is without merit and stands dismissed.

¶49