Dismissed¶¶48

Smt. Elizabeth P.M v. Sri. S. Satheesha

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026CRL.RP/1169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC-KAR, Bengaluru | CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022 | decided 12.02.2026 | S Vishwajith Shetty, J. | Revision (Ss.397/401 Cr.PC) by accused drawer against conviction under S.138 NI Act in C.C.No.188/2010 (fine Rs.3,97,500/-, default S.I. 3 months), confirmed in Crl.A.No.281/2015; held: no defence at trial, S.139/S.118 NI Act presumptions unrebutted, signature and account undisputed; rejection of S.391 Cr.PC handwriting-expert application upheld (earlier Crl.RP.No.1139/2019 dismissed 27.08.2021); narrow revisional scope over concurrent findings; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the services of the learned Amicus curiae were placed on record and his fee fixed at Rs.15,000/-. ¶¶48

Smt. Elizabeth P.M Vs Sri. S. Satheesha — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the services of the learned Amicus curiae were placed on record and his fee fixed at Rs.15,000/-.

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC, should set aside the concurrent judgments of conviction under Section 138 N.I.Act passed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal, given the petitioner's contention that the Appellate Court erred in rejecting her Section 391 Cr.PC application for handwriting-expert verification of the cheque and that her estranged husband had misused her stolen cheque. +1 more

¶¶38

Court's answer

This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below; the petitioner's grievance over rejection of her Section 391 Cr.PC handwriting-expert application affords no ground for interference, that application having already been pursued before this Court in Crl.RP.No.1139/2019 which was dismissed on 27.08.2021.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner neither disputed her signature on the cheque-in-question nor the Syndicate Bank account at trial, and set up no defence before the Trial Court, the presumption arising under Sections 139 and 118 of the N.I.Act stood un-rebutted and the Trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing her under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

The scope of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings recorded by two Courts is very narrow, and consequently the criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision against concurrent conviction under S.138 NI Act dismissed — HC-KAR (S Vishwajith Shetty, J., 12.02.2026), CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022: Accused in C.C.No.188/2010 (II Addl. First Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru), sentenced to a fine of Rs.3,97,500/- (default S.I. 3 months) over dishonour of cheque No.712497 dated 23.05.2006 for Rs.2,50,000/-, had at trial neither disputed her signature on the cheque nor that it was drawn on her Syndicate Bank, J.P.Nagar Branch account, and set up no defence; the presumptions under Ss.139 and 118 N.I.Act therefore stood un-rebutted and conviction was fully justified. Her S.391 Cr.PC plea before the appellate court for handwriting-expert comparison of the cheque — already pressed unsuccessfully in Crl.RP.No.1139/2019, dismissed 27.08.2021 — gave no ground for interference; scope of revisional interference with the concurrent findings of two courts held 'very narrow'. Revision dismissed; conviction and sentence stand; amicus curiae fee fixed at Rs.15,000/-.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1169 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. ELIZABETH P.M, S/O VIJAY N P, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, JUNIOR HEALTH WOMEN ASSISTANT, NAGUVINAHALLI SUB CENTRE NO.311, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, NAGUVINAHALLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 477.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SYED AMEER, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. S. SATHEESHA, S/O SRI SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT D NO.13, B BLOCK, NEW BLOCK EXTENSION, KUMBARAKIOPPAL, DEVARAJ MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H V, ADVOCATE)

¶17

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 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.12.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.188/2010 AND THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED BY STHE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRLA..NO.281/2015, THAT THE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CASE BE REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Accused is before this Court in this Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.188/2010 dated 26.12.2015 by the Court of II Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.281/2015 dated 30.07.2022 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.

¶26

Heard the learned Amicus curiae for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent.

¶27

Respondent had initiated proceedings against the

¶28

petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act) before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Mysuru in

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

C.C.No.188/2010. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner who is acquainted to him had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque-in-question bearing No.712497 dated 23.05.2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank, J.P.Nagar, Mysuru was issued in his favour. The said cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank, when presented for realisation with a shara 'funds insufficient'. The respondent thereafter got issued legal notice to the petitioner which was duly served on her. However, since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque-in-question, in spite of service of legal notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against her before the Trial Court in C.C.No.188/2010 for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had claimed to be tried. The respondent had therefore examined himself before the Trial Court as PW.1 and had got marked four documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. However,

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

on behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court vide impugned order convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,97,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.188/2010 dated 26.12.2015 has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.281/2015 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru by judgment and order dated 30.07.2022. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Learned Amicus curiae for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application before the Appellate Court under Section 391 of Cr.PC with a prayer to refer the cheque-in-question to a handwriting expert for verifying the signature and handwriting found in the said instrument. The Appellate Court has erred in rejecting the

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

said application. He submits that the petitioner and the respondent are strangers and the petitioner's estranged husband had stolen her cheque and handed over the same to the respondent, who was misused the cheque. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.

¶39

According to the respondent/complainant petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from him in the month of February, 2006 and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque-in-question was issued in his favour. The said cheque when presented for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee bank with a shara 'funds insufficient'. Undisputedly, the statutory legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent to the petitioner after the cheque was dishonoured was served on her. The petitioner has not replied to the said legal notice. Before the Trial Court the petitioner neither disputed her signature found in the cheque-in-question nor had she disputed that the cheque was drawn on the bank account maintained by her

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

in Syndicate Bank, J.P.Nagar Branch, Mysuru. Therefore, a presumption arose against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I.Act. Unless the petitioner rebuts the said presumption by putting forward a probable defence, she is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶43

Before the Trial Court, the petitioner has not set up any defence. Therefore, the presumption that arose against her stood un-rebutted and the Trial Court was therefore fully justified in convicting and sentencing her for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is only before the Appellate Court, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of Cr.PC with a prayer to refer the cheque-in-question to a handwriting expert for the purpose of verifying and comparing her signature and handwriting found in the cheque-in-question. The said application was dismissed by the Appellate Court; As against the said order, petitioner had approached this

¶44

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Court in the Crl.RP.No.1139/2019 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.08.2021. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. The scope of this Court in exercise of this revisional jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts is very narrow. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The Criminal revision petition is dismissed .

¶49

ii. The services of learned Amicus curiae is placed on record, and his fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/-.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

KVR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.A.No.281/2015 confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.12.2015 passed in C.C.No.188/2010 by the Court of II Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru; both orders sought to be set aside by the petitioner.¶¶25
Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru · 30.07.2022
Prior proceeding
Respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Mysuru in C.C.No.188/2010, alleging she borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- and issued cheque No.712497 dated 23.05.2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank, J.P.Nagar, Mysuru, dishonoured with remark 'funds insufficient'; statutory legal notice duly served, no repayment made.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
Trial in C.C.No.188/2010: respondent examined himself as PW.1 and marked four documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4; no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record on behalf of the defence; petitioner claimed to be tried.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
Trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.3,97,500/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months, by judgment dated 26.12.2015 in C.C.No.188/2010.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.188/2010 dated 26.12.2015 was confirmed in first appeal Crl.A.No.281/2015 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru on 30.07.2022.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed an application before the Appellate Court under Section 391 of Cr.PC praying that the cheque-in-question be referred to a handwriting expert for verifying the signature and handwriting found therein.¶¶35
Prior proceeding
The Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's Section 391 Cr.PC application seeking handwriting-expert examination of the cheque.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
As against the dismissal of her Section 391 application, the petitioner had approached this Court in Crl.RP.No.1139/2019, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.08.2021.¶¶46

Smt. Elizabeth P.M v. Sri. S. Satheesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Elizabeth P.M v. Sri. S. Satheesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Rakesh S K @ Rakesh Gowda

Smt Vasanthi Shenoy Vs Sri Damodar Shenoy

Renil @ Rinil C Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjeeva Ganiga Vs Sri P Lingaiah

H P Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Dinesh Kumar Vs Mr Chandrahasa Ullala