Dismissed¶35

Sri. Basavaraju v. Sri. T. D. Murthy

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – S.138

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1073/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CRL.RP No.1073 of 2026, H.P. Sandesh J., order dated 14.07.2026: revision petition against conviction under S.138 NI Act dismissed; accused's categorical admission of receiving Rs.3,50,000/- loan and of the cheque pertaining to that transaction; concurrent findings of Trial Court (CC No.280/2021) and Appellate Court (CRL.A No.93/2023) not disturbed; revisional jurisdiction held not exercisable; fine Rs.3,90,000/- with Rs.3,80,000/- compensation to complainant.

What did the court decide?

Where there is a categorical admission on the part of D.W.1 (the accused) of having received the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and of the cheque having been issued, the question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise; hence the revision petition is dismissed. ¶35

Sri. Basavaraju Vs Sri. T. D. Murthy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the accused admitted receipt of the loan amount and the cheque relates to that transaction.

¶35

Court's answer

¶35

Ratio / Principle

In cross-examination D.W.1 categorically admitted that he had taken the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and that the cheque is in respect of that transaction; though he denied issuance of the cheque, he admitted receipt of the amount and the signature on Ex.P.1 cheque, which both Courts below took into account.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — S.138 — Criminal revision under Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C. — Petitioner (accused) convicted by JMFC-II, Mandya in CC No.280/2021 (judgment dated 12.07.2023) for dishonour of a cheque issued towards discharge of a loan of Rs.3,50,000/-; sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,90,000/-, of which Rs.3,80,000/- payable to the complainant as compensation; conviction confirmed on appeal by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in CRL.A No.93/2023 (judgment dated 11.06.2026). In cross-examination D.W.1 categorically admitted receipt of Rs.3,50,000/- and that the cheque related to that transaction, admitting the signature on Ex.P.1 cheque despite denying issuance; both Courts below considered the defences of the accused. Held, where such a categorical admission exists, the question of exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise — Revision petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35823 CRL.RP No. 1073 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1073 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. BASAVARAJU, S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT 1^ST CROSS, SUBHASHNAGAR, MANDYA CITY-571401.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJU H.B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. T.D. MURTHY, S/O LATE DESIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KERETHONNURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

¶16

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRL.A NO.93/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.07.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC-II, MANDYA IN CC NO.280/2021 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:35823 CRL.RP No. 1073 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881, AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.3,90,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.3,80,000/- WAS DIRECTED TO BE PAID TO THE COMPLAINANT AS COMPENSATION VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶25

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused and the complainant were having close acquaintance and on 22.07.2017, the accused borrowed loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant for his legal necessity and promised to repay the same within five months. Since the accused failed to pay the said amount within the agreed period, the complainant approached the accused and demanded to repay the loan amount. The accused kept on postponing the same on one or the other pretext and ultimately on 26.12.2017, the accused issued a cheque towards

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:35823 CRL.RP No. 1073 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

discharge of his legally recoverable debt. On presentation of the said cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused and the same was served. Inspite of service of notice, neither the accused replied to the notice nor paid the loan amount. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

¶30

3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. The accused also examined himself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 categorically admitted that he had taken the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and cheque is also in respect of the said transaction. Though he denied the issuance of cheque, but admits the receipt of the amount and also the signature found on Ex.P.1 cheque. The Trial Court having taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1, which is extracted in paragraph No.18, taken note of each of the defence of the accused and answered the same. The Appellate Court also re-

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:35823 CRL.RP No. 1073 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

appreciated the evidence on record and when there was a categorical admission on the part of D.W.1 for having received the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and cheque was given, confirmed the order of the Trial Court.

¶35

4. The very contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the defence of the accused and the same cannot be accepted. When there is a categorical admission on the part of D.W.1 for having received the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and cheque was issued, the question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri. Basavaraju v. Sri. T. D. Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Basavaraju v. Sri. T. D. Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Shivasagar Vs Smt. Mahadevamma

Sri Srinivas R @ Ramakrishnaiah Srinivas Vs Sri Balakrishna G

Dr Lakshmisha Vs Keerthi P S @ Keerthi P S

H M Somashekar Vs M/S Vkl Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. K. C. Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri. K. C. Srinivas

Sri K Venkataramanappa Vs Smt Munirathnamma @ Nagarathna