Srinivas v., Vs Basavarajappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Srinivas v., Vs Basavarajappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the appellate judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 in Crl.A.No.61/2023 (and consequentially the trial court judgment dated 16.06.2023 in CC.No.2640/2020) concerning punishment under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

Concurrent findings stand against the petitioner: he led no defence evidence, did not rebut the complainant's evidence, did not dispute the issuance of the cheque or the purchase of paddy worth Rs.1,64,785/-, and, despite claiming he had paid the paddy amount, produced no document to establish it — a point noted in paragraph No.21 of the trial court judgment and appreciated by the Appellate Court.

Ratio / Principle

The conditions imposed in this Court's conditional order dated 19.08.2024 (suspending the sentence) were not complied with by the revision petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the non-compliance.

Key takeaways

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not pursuing the matter diligently and no ground is made out to consider the petition; accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2024) under Ss.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, seeking to set aside the appellate judgment dated 16.01.2024 in Crl.A.No.61/2023 (I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere) and consequentially the trial court judgment dated 16.06.2023 in CC.No.2640/2020 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Davanagere) imposing punishment under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act — DISMISSED. The conditions of this Court's conditional order dated 19.08.2024 suspending the sentence were not complied with; the petitioner's counsel was absent on successive listings (12.12.2024 and at the present hearing), whereupon the respondent was given liberty to execute the impugned order; mediation referred on 21.07.2025 failed as the petitioner never appeared before the Mediation Centre for 60 days. On merits, concurrent findings existed: the petitioner led no defence evidence, did not rebut the complainant's evidence, did not dispute the cheque issuance or the purchase of paddy worth Rs.1,64,785/-, and produced no document to substantiate his claim of having paid the paddy amount (noted in para 21 of the trial court judgment and appreciated by the Appellate Court). No ground was made out to consider the petition.

NC: 2026:KHC:30193 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1009 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRINIVAS V., S/O VENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, NO.2578, VIMALESHWARA NILAYA, MCC ‘A’ BLOCK, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS MACHIDEVA SAMUDAYA BHAVANA ROAD, BESIDE VISHWANATHA PHOTO STUDIO, DAVANAGERE-577002.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF NO.C-02, ARASAPURA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577528.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30193 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2024

HC-KAR

DTD 16.01.2024 IN CRL.A.NO.61/2023, PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, CONSEQUENTLY SETTING ASIDE OF THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.06.2023 IN CC.NO.2640/2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This Court vide order dated 19.08.2024 passed the conditional order while suspending the sentence and the said conditions are not complied with.

The learned counsel for the respondent who is present before the Court also reiterates that the said order is not complied with.

When the matter was listed on 12.12.2024, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was absent and the learned counsel for the respondent made the submission that the interim order passed by this Court is not complied. Hence, the respondent was given liberty to execute the impugned order. On 21.07.2025, the matter was referred to the mediation and mediation report is also received that the

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30193 CRL.RP No. 1009 of 2024

HC-KAR

petitioner never appeared before the Mediation Centre for a period of 60 days.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is absent today. On perusal of the records, it discloses that concurrent finding is given and the revision petitioner not led any defence evidence, not rebutted the evidence of the complainant, not disputed the issuance of cheque and even not disputed the purchase of paddy worth of Rs.1,64,785/-. But he has stated that he has paid the paddy amount and to establish the same, he has not produced any document. The same is taken note of in paragraph No.21 of the judgment of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also appreciated the same while considering the appeal. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not pursuing the matter diligently and no ground is made out to consider the petition and hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2