Disposed¶39

S Sridhar v. M Goutham Chand

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026CRL.RP/120/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S SRIDHAR v. M GOUTHAM CHAND (Prop. M/s Goutham Jewelers), CRL.RP No. 120 of 2026, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 12.02.2026 by S Vishwajith Shetty J. Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cheque-dishonour conviction; revision under Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C. (Ss.438/442 BNSS) against judgment dated 08.04.2025 in Crl.A.No.342/2021 confirming conviction in C.C.No.7948/2016 and enhancing fine from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/-; enhancement held justified; revision disposed of confirming conviction and sentence; eight weeks granted to deposit balance fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below confirmed; petitioner granted eight weeks' time from receipt of certified copy of the order to deposit the balance fine of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Trial Court. ¶39

S Sridhar Vs M Goutham Chand — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence (fine enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/-) passed in Crl.A.No.342/2021 by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, should be set aside in this criminal revision. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Since the cheque amount was Rs.6,00,000/- and the Trial Court, having convicted the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act, had already sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/-, the Appellate Court was fully justified in enhancing the fine from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/-.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's prayer for reasonable time to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is just and reasonable, and some reasonable time can be granted to him.

¶37

Key takeaways

The criminal revision petition is disposed of, confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below.ratio¶39
The petitioner is granted eight weeks' time from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Trial Court in compliance of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2025 in Crl.A.No.342/2021.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. (Sections 438/442 BNSS) by the accused in a Section 138 N.I. Act case (C.C.No.7948/2016, IV Addl. A.C.M.M., Small Causes Court, Bengaluru) challenging the appellate judgment dated 08.04.2025 in Crl.A.No.342/2021 (LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru), whereby his conviction was confirmed and the fine was enhanced from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- on the complainant's appeal. Held: the cheque amount being Rs.6,00,000/- and the Trial Court having already sentenced the drawer to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/-, the Appellate Court was fully justified in enhancing the fine to Rs.7,00,000/-; the revision petition was disposed of confirming the conviction and sentence, with eight weeks' time granted to deposit the balance fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.6,00,000/- already deposited).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8702 CRL.RP No. 120 of 2026

¶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. 120 OF 2026

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S SRIDHAR, S/O SAMPATH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PLOT NO.356, PELICAN, BELFORT, PINNACHIKUPPAM, PILLAIARKUPPAM, PUDUCHERRY - 607 402.

¶10

AND ALSO R/O NO.72, G-2, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 1ST BLOCK, OPP RAMA TEMPLE, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally SRI.SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE) signed by KAVYA R AND: Location: M GOUTHAM CHAND, High court PROP M/S GOUTHAM JEWELERS, of Karnataka NO.241/1, RANGASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, BENGALURU - 560 053.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 08.03.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL.A.C.M.M SMALL CAUSES COURT AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.7948/2016 WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8702 CRL.RP No. 120 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE HONBLE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Accused is before this Court in this Criminal revision

¶22

petition filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.342/2021 by the Court of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Respondent herein had initiated proceedings

¶25

against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act') in C.C.No.7948/2016 before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) from the respondent and towards part payment of the said amount the petitioner had issued the

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8702 CRL.RP No. 120 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

cheque-in-question totally for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Since the cheque-in-question were dishonoured by the drawee bank, the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishalbe under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner in C.C.No.7948/2016 for offence perishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same complainant had filed Crl.A.No.342/2021 before the Court of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, which was partly allowed and the fine imposed by the Trial Court was enhanced from Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only). Assailing the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.342/2021 passed by the Court of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, dated 08.04.2025, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8702 CRL.RP No. 120 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶32

the fine amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) as ordered by the Trial Court has already been deposited by the petitioner and he is now required to deposit only the balance fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). Since the petitioner is facing financial problem, reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) before the Trial Court as ordered by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.342/2021.

¶33

The amount covered under the

¶34

cheque-in-question is Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only). The Trial Court having convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act had sentenced him to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) and therefore the Appellate Court was fully justified in enhancing the fine amount from Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakhs only) to Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only)

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8702 CRL.RP No. 120 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Material on record would go to show that petitioner has already deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court in compliance of the judgment and order dated 08.03.2021 in C.C.No.7948/2016 by the Court of IV Additional and A.C.M.M, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru. Prayer is now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to grant him reasonable time to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupeed One Lakh only) in compliance of the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.342/2021 dated 08.04.2025 by the Court of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner is just and reasonable and some reasonable time can be granted to the petitioner to deposit the balance fine amount. Accordingly, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The Criminal revision petition is disposed of confirming the judgment and order of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:8702 CRL.RP No. 120 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

conviction and sentence passed by Courts below.

¶44

ii. Petitioner is granted eight weeks' time from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) before the Trial Court in compliance of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.342/2021 by the Court of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶47

KVR

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

S Sridhar v. M Goutham Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Sridhar v. M Goutham Chand

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

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