Dismissed¶57

Smt. Sadhana Nishabt Lohar v. Markandeya Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd.

Negotiable Instruments Act, S.138 – Conviction upheld in revision

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026CRL.RP/100147/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.RP No.100147 of 2022, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad, decided 05.01.2026 by V. Srishananda J. Keywords: Section 138 NI Act conviction upheld; Section 139 NI Act presumption; initial burden discharged by complainant; no rebuttal evidence by accused; Rangappa vs. Shri.Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 followed; cheque No.043301 dated 09.06.2017 for Rs.12,19,297 dishonoured; mortgage loan Rs.12,00,000; Markandeya Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.; revision under Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C. dismissed; time till 20.06.2026 to pay balance amount.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed and conviction upheld; however, time granted till 20.06.2026 to pay the balance amount. ¶57

Smt. Sadhana Nishabt Lohar Vs Markandeya Co-Operative… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition dismissed and conviction upheld; however, time granted till 20.06.2026 to pay the balance amount.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioner (accused) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, confirmed in appeal, should be set aside in revision on the contention that the complainant did not discharge the initial burden even though no rebuttal evidence was placed on record by the accused.

¶41

Court's answer

The complainant discharged the necessary initial burden to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to the accused and was dishonoured with no compliance to the notice callings (Ex.P.3); the loan application (Ex.P.7) bears the accused's signature; and the loan agreement (Ex.P.8) and surety bond establish sanction of the mortgage loan towards repayment of which the cheque was issued.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed on record by the accused, her conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is just and proper.

¶48

Key takeaways

The Learned Trial Judge and the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the material evidence on record while passing the impugned orders.ratio¶53
The grounds urged in the revision petition are not sufficient to annul the well reasoned impugned judgments.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, S.138 - Conviction upheld in revision - Complainant-society discharged the initial burden: Ex.P.1 cheque belonging to the accused was dishonoured and notice callings (Ex.P.3) went unheeded; loan application Ex.P.7 bore the accused's signature and loan agreement Ex.P.8 with surety bond established the mortgage loan towards whose repayment the cheque was issued - Presumption under S.139 NI Act rightly drawn by the Trial Court following Rangappa vs. Shri.Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898) - Accused placed no rebuttal evidence on record, hence conviction held just and proper - Trial Court (VII JMFC, Belagavi, CC No.384/2018, 10.10.2019) and First Appellate Court (XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum, Crl.A.No.428/2019, 09.03.2022) held to have rightly appreciated the evidence - Criminal Revision Petition No.100147/2022 dismissed; time till 20.06.2026 granted to pay the balance amount. (V. Srishananda J., High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad, 05.01.2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:26 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100147 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SADHANA NISHABT LOHAR AGE 37 YEARS, OCC MEDICAL PRACTITIONER R/O H.NO. 259/C, GANAPAT GALLI, AMBEWADI, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI-590001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶13

MARKANDEYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MANNUR, TALUKA BELAGAVI R/BY ITS RECOVERY OFFICER, SHRI SURAJ PIRAJI PATIL AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. MANNUR, TQ BELAGAVI-590013.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.428/2019 DATED ON 09.03.2022 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CC NO.384/2018 DATED 10.10.2019 PASSED BY THE VII-JMFC BELAGAVI, AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC-D:26 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶22

Heard Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Abhishek Barigidad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.T.Bangi, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

Accused is the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction passed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.384/2018 dated 10.10.2019 on the file of VII JMFC, Belagavi which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.428/2019 dated 09.03.2022 on the file of XI Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

¶24

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary

¶25

for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶26

3.1. Respondent/complainant filed a petition under

¶27

Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of the offence

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:26 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein by contending that accused and her husband - Nishant Lohar being the members of the complainant society, approached the complainant and after furnishing necessary documents and sureties, availed mortgage loan in a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-.

¶31

3.2. Complainant sanctioned the loan and the loan account became irregular and towards repayment of the said loan amount, a cheque bearing No.043301 dated 09.06.2017 in a sum of Rs.12,19,297/- drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Belagavi Branch was issued.

¶32

3.3. Said cheque on presentation, came to be dishonored and there was no compliance to the callings of notice and therefore, sought for action against the petitioner.

¶33

Learned Trial Judge after completing necessary formalities, noted that the cheque belonged to the petitioner and signature found in the cheque was not in

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC-D:26 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

dispute and drew the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Shri.Mohan reported in

¶38

AIR 2010 SC 1898 and convicted the accused.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.428/2019, which on contest, came to be dismissed.

¶40

Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition.

¶41

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that even in the absence of any rebuttal evidence that is placed on record, since the initial burden is not discharged by the complainant, the conviction order needs to be set aside.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC-D:26 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶47

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P.1 - cheque belongs to the accused and same is dishonored and there is no compliance to the callings of the notice vide Ex.P.3. Loan application is marked at Ex.P.7 wherein the signature of the accused is found. Loan agreement marked at Ex.P.8 and surety bond would make it clear that there was a sanction of mortgage loan and towards repayment of the said loan; Ex.P.1 – cheque came to be issued, which on presentation having been dishonored, complainant has discharged necessary initial burden to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶48