Dismissed

Sri Dr Lakshman R L @ Lachanaik v. Sri K B Maruthi

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2026CRL.RP/118/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Section 138 NI Act for a dishonoured cheque of ₹1,50,000 hand loan, with fine of ₹2,50,000 and ₹2,40,000 compensation, confirmed by first appellate court. Revision challenged concurrent findings. Court found cheque signature undisputed and no rebuttal evidence to displace presumption; dismissed the revision petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Dr Lakshman R L @ Lachanaik Vs Sri K B Maruthi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:12801 CRL.RP No. 118 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 118 OF 2021

¶7

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI DR. LAKSHMAN R.L. @ LACHANAIK S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A NO.BANNIHATTI VILLAGE VAKRAPURA POST HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI MANJUNATHA R, ADV., FOR SRI GADILINGAPPA G.M, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI K.B. MARUTHI S/O BARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A BANUVALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN - 577 601.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI G.J. SUNKAPUR, ADV.)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.69/2017 WHERE IN CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 05.05.2017 IN C.C.NO.331/2011 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:12801 CRL.RP No. 118 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri Manjunatha R for Sri Gadilingappa G.M,

¶25

learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G. J. Sunkapur, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.331 of 2011 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short, 'N.I. Act') is the revision petitioner.

¶27

Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶28

A private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, came to be lodged alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in respect of a dishonored cheque issued by the accused.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12801 CRL.RP No. 118 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned trial Magistrate after completing the

¶32

necessary formalities recorded the plea and thereafter recorded the evidence of the complainant, wherein documents namely original cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, returned postal cover and RTC extract and pay slip and other revenue documents were placed on record as Exs.P1 to 18.

¶33

As against, the learned trial Magistrate raised a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act noting the fact that, the complainant has discharged the initial burden. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption.

¶34

However, the accused did not choose to place any rebuttable evidence on record. Cross examination of PW1 also did not yield any positive material so as to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I Act.

¶35

As such, learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed the fine amount of ₹.2,50,000/- of which

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:12801 CRL.RP No. 118 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

amount of ₹.2,40,000/was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2017.

¶41

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

¶42

Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶43

Sri Manjunatha R, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:12801 CRL.RP No. 118 of 2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments.

¶48

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, Ex.P1 - cheque belongs to accused and the signature found therein is that of the accused. There is no dispute about the said aspect of the matter.

¶49

It is the case of the complainant that accused obtained hand loan of sum of ₹.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same shortly with 2% interest per month. Towards repayment of the loan amount, accused issued a Cheque bearing No.295073 (Ex.P1) which on presentation was dishonoured with an endorsement "Funds insufficient".

¶50

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption as there was no compliance to the statutory notice.

¶51

In order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant there is no defence evidence placed on record.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:12801 CRL.RP No. 118 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Taking note of these aspects of the matter

¶56

recording the order of conviction is just and proper, which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.

¶57

Thus, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments.

¶58

Hence, the following:-

¶59

ORDER

¶60

Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶61

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶62

NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri Dr Lakshman R L @ Lachanaik v. Sri K B Maruthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Dr Lakshman R L @ Lachanaik v. Sri K B Maruthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. H T Bhagyamma Vs Smt. S Bharathi

Krishnamurthy K N Vs State by

B K Nanjegowda Vs a M Prasanna

A Malleshappa Vs the State

Smt Babitha S Nayak Vs Sri Chandrakanth Suvarna

Sri I.M. Nagaraju Vs Arun Saldana