Partly allowed

Sri Devaraj H S v. Smt Asha

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026CRL.RP/1083/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed applications under Section 427 CrPC in two connected criminal revision petitions, directing that sentences of default imprisonment for fine non-payment in two cheque dishonour cases run concurrently. The accused had already served over three months in custody. The court ordered his release and dismissed the revision petitions as the sentence had been served.

What did the court decide?

Applications under Section 427 CrPC allowed; sentences in CC No. 19240/2017 and CC No. 19241/2017 directed to run concurrently; jail authorities directed to release the accused if three months' sentence completed in both cases; revision petitions dismissed as sentence served.

Sri Devaraj H S Vs Smt Asha — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶4

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1104 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1083 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

¶9

IN CRL.RP No. 1104/2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI DEVARAJ H S S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 103/30 SAMPANNA NILAYA VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE ROAD DURGAMBA BADAVANE KULAYI MANGALORE-575011 SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

¶13

AND ALSO SRI DEVARAJ H S S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DRIVER, KSRTC, 3RD DEPOT KUNTHIKANA MANGALORE DIVISION, SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT M/S DIVYA DRISHTI CREATIONS

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶19

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT ASHA D/O I B PONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.164/K, 14TH CROSS, 19TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560040

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SMT. RAJESWARI, ADV.)

¶24

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 JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.19241/2017 DATED 09.03.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CMM BENGALURU AND JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2021 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.18/2021 PASSED BY THE LIX ACC AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶25

IN CRL.RP NO. 1083/2022

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI DEVARAJ H S S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 103/30 SAMPANNA NILAYA VISHNUMURHTY TEMPLE ROAD, DURGAMBA BADAVANE KULAYI MANGALORE - 575011 SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

¶28

AND ALSO SRI. DEVARAJ H S S/O SIDDEGOWDA

¶29

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶32

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶33

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS DRIVER, KSRTC 3RD DEPOT, KUNTHIKANA, MANGALORE DIVISION SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT M/S DIVYA DRISHTI CREATIONS

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

SMT ASHA D/O I.B. PONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.164/K, 14TH CROSS 19TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560 040

¶38

...RESPONDENT

¶39

(BY SMT. T. R. RAJESHWARI., ADV.)

¶40

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 SIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.19240/2017 DATED 09.03.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ACMM, BANGALORE AND JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2021 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.17/2021 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID OFFENCE.

¶41

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

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

These Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the Revision Petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2021 and 17 of 2021 by the LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-60), at Bengaluru (for short the "appellate Court") confirming the Judgment and order of conviction dated 09.03.2020 in CC No.19241 of 2017 and CC NO.19240 of 2017 passed by the XIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioneraccused would submit that the accused came to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and to pay a fine of Rs.6.00 lakh and in default to pay fine, to undergo three months simple imprisonment in CC No.19241 of 2017. In CC No.19240 of 2017, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and to pay fine of Rs.7.00 lakh. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by impugned judgment of conviction

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶52

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶53

and order on sentence, the revision petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeals No.18 of 2021 and 17 of 2021. The appeals came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 07.12.2021. Being aggrieved by this judgments of both the Courts, the Revision Petitioner has preferred these revision petitions.

¶54

This Court has not passed any stay order to the judgments passed by both the Courts. During the pendency of the Revision Petition, the accused was arrested on 27.04.2026 and was remanded to judicial custody and since then, till today, i.e. for 4 months and 19 days, the accused is in judicial custody. The accused has already served the sentence.

¶55

However, now the Revision Petitioner has filed Application under Section 427 of Cr.PC in these Revision Petitions, seeking an order that the order of sentence imposed against the accused in both cases to run concurrently and to release the petitioner from judicial custody.

¶56

This application is supported by the memorandum of facts in which it is stated that the this Court was pleased to

¶57

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶60

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶61

connect both the Revision Petitions and hear them together.

¶62

Due to financial hardship, the accused was not able to deposit the fine amount. This Court, by order dated 27.04.2026 ordered to take the accused into custody. Subsequently, accused was sent to Central Prison, Bengaluru on 27.04.2026. Accused, as on today, has already undergone imprisonment for more than three months. In both the cases, both the accused and the complainant are one and the same and the transaction in both cases arise out of the loan transaction of the year 2014.

¶63

It is further stated that the trial Court, in both the cases, has ordered that in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Since the judgment of conviction and sentence in both cases are separate and the accused, as on date, has undergone more than three months of conviction. It is further stated that the revision petitioner/accused is suffering from ill-health conditions and since he is in prison, he is not able to undergo advanced and effective medical treatment. The learned Counsel would submit that if the application is not allowed, the revision petitioner would be put to great hardship and

¶64

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶67

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶68

irrecoverable loss; and on the other hand, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. On these grounds, it is sought to allow the applications.

¶69

To substantiate his arguments, the learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.K. BANSAL v. STATE OF HARAYANA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013)7 SCC 211 and the co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Petition No.5718 of 2026 rendered in the case of MR. DINESH MALPANI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS decided on 04.06.2026.

¶70

Learned Counsel for the respondent is present before

¶71

the Court. He has not filed any objections to IA.II and IA.I of 2026 respectively in both the Revision Petitions.

¶72

On careful examination of entire material placed before this Court, it is crystal-clear that in both cases, i.e. CC No.19241 of 2017 and 19240 of 2017, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The accused has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6.00 lakh and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo

¶73

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶76

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶77

three months simple imprisonment in CC No.19241 of 2017; the accused has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7.00 lakh and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment in CC No.19240 of 2017. The trial Court has pronounced the judgment on the same day, i.e. 09.03.2020. This Court on 27.04.2026, has passed the order in both the cases, which is as under:

¶78

" Petitioner is produced by executing the nonbailable warrant by Surathkal Police Station, Mangaluru.

¶79

Sri Stephen Mathes for Sri Karunakara P, learned Counsel for the petitioner would seek time to make the payment.

¶80

Since the petitioner has not chosen to pay the fine amount ordered in CC No.19241/2017 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.18/2021 and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in CC No.19240/2017 confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.17/2021, is taken to custody.

¶81

Learned Registrar (Judicial) attached to this Court shall issue necessary warrant in terms of the Conviction Order to Central Prison, Bengaluru. "

¶82

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶85

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶86

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Revision

¶87

Petitioner that even after lapse of three months, the jail authorities have refused to release the accused on the ground that the accused has not completed six months as he has been convicted in both cases.

¶88

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also relying on the aforestated decisions, as also in view of the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.PC, it is just and proper to direct the jail authorities to release the accused/Revision Petitioner, as he has already served the sentence concurrently, for more than three months in both cases, i.e. CC No.19240 of 2017 and CC No.19241 of 2017, I proceed to pass the following:

¶89

O R D E R

¶90

i. IA.II of 2026 filed in Crl.RP No.1104 of 2022 and IA.I of 2026 filed in Crl.RP No.1083 of 2022 are allowed;

¶91

ii. It is ordered that sentence passed by the trial Court in CC No.19240 of 2017 and 19241 of 2017, shall run concurrently;

¶92

10 -

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

NC: 2026:KHC:50500 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2022

¶95

CNR: KAHC010370872022

¶96

iii. Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the concerned Jail Authority to release the accused, if he has completed sentence of three months in both cases, i.e. in CC No.19240 of 2017 pertaining to Crl.RP No.1104 of 2022 and in CC No.19241 of 2017 which pertains to Crl.RP No.1083 of 2022;

¶97

iv. Since the accused/Revision Petitioner has already served the sentence in both cases, in view of submission of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, both Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed;

¶98

v. In view of dismissal of Criminal Revision Petitions, pending IAs if any in both cases, stand disposed of.

¶99

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶100

lnn List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri Devaraj H S v. Smt Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Devaraj H S v. Smt Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases