Uday Kumar Vs Jayanth Prabhu — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Uday Kumar Vs Jayanth Prabhu — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Revision Petition allowed; the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.05.2013 in CC No.3147/2008 (JMFC (IV Court), Mangaluru) and the judgment dated 21.08.2018 in Crl.A.No.218/2013 (VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru) set aside; petitioners acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act; bail bonds, if any, cancelled; amounts deposited by the petitioners permitted to be withdrawn.

Issue for consideration

Whether a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, filed not in the name of the partnership firm in whose name the cheques were drawn but by an individual claiming to be a partner, without any material showing that he was a partner of the firm or that he was authorised by the firm to initiate the proceedings, could have been entertained by the courts. +1 more

Court's answer

The cheques (Ex.P1 and P2) were drawn in favour of the partnership firm; the complainant produced no material to show that he was a partner of the firm in whose name the cheques were drawn, nor that he was authorised by the firm to represent it and initiate the Section 138 proceedings; the complaint was not filed in the name of the firm. In the absence of any material showing the complainant was a partner of the firm, the complaint could not have been entertained; both courts below failed to appreciate this.

Ratio / Principle

DW3 (Mahadeva Basappa Hubli), manager of the Bank, produced the specimen signature cards Ex.D12 and D13 and stated that the signatures on the disputed cheques Ex.P1 and P2 differ from the specimen signatures of the accused, and that the amounts in the cheques were altered and countersigned with signatures not tallying with the specimen signature; both courts below failed to appreciate this and erred in convicting the petitioners.

Key takeaways

Under the circumstances (absence of proof of the complainant's partnership/authorisation and the DW3 evidence of differing signatures and altered amounts), the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No.1178 of 2018, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, S Vishwajith Shetty, J., decided 19.01.2026) under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.2 and 3, Uday Kumar and Shrikant, against their conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.3147/2008 (JMFC (IV Court), Mangaluru, judgment dated 27.05.2013 imposing fine of Rs.1,77,000/- with default simple imprisonment of one year), confirmed in Crl.A.No.218/2013 by the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru on 21.08.2018. Cheques Ex.P1 (Rs.90,000) and Ex.P2 (Rs.82,276) were drawn in favour of the partnership firm ('M/s. Jyothi Diagnostic'), but the complaint was lodged by an individual claiming to be a partner. Held: (i) the complainant produced no material to show he was a partner of the firm in whose name the cheques were drawn or that he was authorised by the firm to file the complaint; the complaint not being in the firm's name, it could not have been entertained, a point both courts below failed to appreciate; (ii) DW3, manager of the drawee Bank, deposed that the signatures on Ex.P1 and P2 differ from the accused's specimen signatures in Ex.D12 and D13 and that the cheque amounts were altered and countersigned with signatures not tallying with the specimens, which both courts ignored while convicting. Impugned judgments set aside; revision petition allowed; petitioners acquitted under Section 138 NI Act; bail bonds cancelled; deposits permitted to be withdrawn.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2685 CRL.RP No. 1178 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1178 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

UDAY KUMAR S/O RAGHU HAWALDAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. PLOT NO.302 SHIVBASAVA NAGAR BELGAUM, BELGAUM TALUK - 590 001 BELGAUM DISTRICT.

SHRIKANT S/O YASHWANT HAWALDAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O. PLOT NO.302 SHIVBASAVA NAGAR BELGAUM, BELGAUM TALUK - 590 001 BELGAUM DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI SACHIN K. NAIK, ADV., FOR SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADV.) AND:

JAYANTH PRABHU PARTNER, ADULT M/S. JYOSTHANA DIAGNOSTICS SRI. JAYADURGA SARDAR PATEL ROAD KINNIMULKI UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 118.

…RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2018, PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.218/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2685 CRL.RP No. 1178 of 2018

HC-KAR

SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONERS AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.05.2013 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3147/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC (IV COURT) MANGALORE, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/REVISION PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.3147/2008 dated 27.05.2013 by the Court of JMFC (IV Court), Mangaluru, and the judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.218/2013 by the Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent, who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court.

Petitioners herein were prosecuted by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2685 CRL.RP No. 1178 of 2018

HC-KAR

Instruments Act, 1881, in CC No.3147/2008 on the file of JMFC (IV Court), Mangaluru. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that accused were having a business transaction with the respondent and towards the amount due to be paid by them to the respondent, they had issued two cheques in the name of the partnership firm known as "M/s. Jyoti Diagnostic" for a sum of Rs.90,000 and Rs.82,276/respectively. The said cheques on presentation for realization was dishonoured by the drawee Bank with a shara "insufficient funds". The complainant had thereafter issued statutory notice to the accused and since the accused had failed to pay the amount covered under the cheques in question, in spite of service of notice, he had initiated proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Since the accused had claimed to be tried before the Trial Court, in support of complainant's case, he had examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2 and got marked nine documents as Ex.P1 to P9. In support of defence, three witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and thirteen documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D13. The Trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2013

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2685 CRL.RP No. 1178 of 2018

HC-KAR

passed in CC No.3147/2008 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.1,77,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.218/2013 by the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the cheques in question have been issued in the name of the partnership firm namely "M/s. Jyothi Diagnostic". Complaint has been presented by one of the partners and he has not produced any material before the Court to show that he was authorized to file complaint on behalf of the partnership firm. He also has not produced any material to show that he was the partner of the firm. He submits that the signature found in the cheques in question is in dispute and DW3, manager of the Bank, has clearly stated that signature found in the cheques in question,

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2685 CRL.RP No. 1178 of 2018

HC-KAR

namely, Ex.P1 and P2 and the signature of the accused found in

the specimen signature card at Ex.D12 and D13 differs. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the cheques in question, namely, Ex.P1 and P2 are drawn in the name of partnership firm known as "M/s. Jyothi Diagnostic". Complainant claims to be the partner of the said firm in whose name the cheques in question were drawn. The complainant has not produced any material before the Court to show that he was the partner of the said firm in whose name, the cheques in question was drawn. He also has not produced any material to show that he was authorized by the partnership firm to represent it before the Court and initiate proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Complaint is not filed in the name of

the partnership firm in whose name the cheques in question were drawn and on the other hand, complaint is filed by an individual contending that he is the partner of the firm. In the absence of any material before the Court to show that the

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2685 CRL.RP No. 1178 of 2018

HC-KAR

complainant was partner of the firm in whose name the cheques in question were drawn, complaint could not have been entertained by the Court.

It is the specific case of the accused that the signature found in the cheques in question, namely, Ex.P1 and P2 are forged signatures. In support of their contention, accused has examined DW3, Mahadeva Basappa Hubli, who is the manager of the Bank, who has produced Ex.D12 and D13, the specimen signature of the accused, which was maintained in the Bank. He has also stated that signatures found in the disputed cheques, namely, Ex.P1 and P2 and the signature found in the specimen signature cards Ex.D12 and D13 differs. He has also stated that the amount found in the cheques in question has been altered and countersigned and the said signatures also do not tally with the specimen signature of the accused. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter and have erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:-

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2685 CRL.RP No. 1178 of 2018

HC-KAR

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned

the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.3147/2008 dated 27.05.2013 by the Court of JMFC (IV Court), Mangaluru, and the judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.218/2013 by the Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, are set-aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Their bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled.

The amount deposited by the petitioners either before this Court or before the Trial Court is permitted to be withdrawn by them.

Sd/-

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

DN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64