Dismissed¶52

P. Hanumanthanayak v. Sri. Rajegowda

Negotiable Instruments Act, S.138 – Revision dismissed

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1215/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour conviction upheld; stone crusher sale Rs.6,25,000/-; four post-dated cheques, two of Rs.2 lakh each dishonoured 'funds insufficient'; presumptions Sections 118 and 139 N.I. Act; accused admitted cheques and signature (DW1); concurrent findings; scope of revisional jurisdiction under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.PC limited — interference only if both courts misread record; revision petition dismissed; CRL.RP No.1215 of 2024; High Court of Karnataka; Justice H.P.Sandesh; appellate confirmation Crl.A.No.222/2023; trial C.C.No.5025/2017.

What did the court decide?

Since issuance of the cheques and the signature were admitted by the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the cheques were not issued cannot be accepted. ¶52

P. Hanumanthanayak Vs Sri. Rajegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of N.I. Act by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffered from any failure to consider the material on record in a proper perspective, so as to warrant interference in exercise of this Court's limited revisional jurisdiction.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Since issuance of the cheques and the signature were admitted by the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the cheques were not issued cannot be accepted.

¶52

Key takeaways

The Trial Court and the Appellate Court considered the evidence of PW1 and the defence of DW1 in a proper perspective while convicting and sentencing the accused; therefore the orders of both Courts do not suffer from illegality or incorrectness.ratio¶52
The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited: this Court can interfere only if both Courts below failed to consider the material on record in a proper perspective; in the case on hand no such circumstances were warranted, so no ground existed to entertain the revision petition.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, S.138 — Revision dismissed — Concurrent findings of conviction affirmed in principle. Accused (proprietor of Sri Thanuja Bhavani Engineering Works, Davanagere) bought a stone crusher from the complainant for Rs.6,25,000/-, agreeing to pay via four post-dated cheques (three of Rs.2 lakhs each, one of Rs.25,000/-); two cheques of Rs.2 lakh each were dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient', triggering legal notice, complaint, and conviction of the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act by the Trial Court (C.C.No.5025/2017, judgment dated 12.09.2023), which relied on the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act and found no rebuttal evidence; the First Appellate Court (Crl.A.No.222/2023, judgment dated 14.06.2024, 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan) reassessed the record and confirmed. Revision under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.PC (captioned as filed U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) dismissed: (i) admission by the accused of issuance of the cheques and signatures defeated the plea that cheques were not issued; (ii) both Courts below appreciated the evidence of PW1 and defence of DW1 in proper perspective, so their orders did not suffer from illegality or incorrectness; (iii) revisional jurisdiction is confined to cases where both Courts failed to consider the material on record properly — no such case was made out. (Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH; ORAL ORDER.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:38722 CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010572132024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1215 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

P HANUMANTHANAYAK S/O PIKYA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PROP. OF SRI. THANUJA BHAVANI ENGINEERING WORKS NH 4, BEHIND MALLIKARJUNA LAARI OFFICE, BADA CROSS MOTHI NAGAR DEVANAGERE - 577 001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

Digitally signed AND: by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH SRI. RAJEGOWDA COURT OF KARNATAKA S/O GOWDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND OLD TALUK OFFICE NEAR CANARA BANK HASSAN - 573 201

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. H R RAGHU, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:38722 CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CNR: KAHC010572132024

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.06.2024 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.222/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HASSAN AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.2023 passed in C.C.No.5025/2017 and also against the judgment dated 14.06.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.222/2023.

¶25

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶26

The factual matrix of case of the complainant before

¶27

the Trial Court is that the accused is running an industry under the name and style of Sri Thanuja Bhavani Engineering Works at Davanagere. The complainant has purchased a stone crusher for the purpose of running a granite factor at Hassan but the complainant could not start the said factory, thus sold the said

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:38722 CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2024

¶31

CNR: KAHC010572132024

¶32

crusher to the accused for a total consideration of Rs.6,25,000/-. At the time of purchase, accused has agreed to pay the sale consideration at 04 installments and issued post dated cheques i.e., 03 cheques for Rs.2 lakhs each and 01 cheque for Rs.25,000/-. Out of 04 cheques, two cheques i.e., for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- were honoured but other two cheques for Rs.2 lakh each were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused and the same was served on him and accused gave an evasive reply and refused to pay the cheques amount. Hence, complaint was lodged, cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

¶33

In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, accused himself examined as DW1 but not produced any documents. The Trial Court taken note of the transaction and issuance of cheques and out of four cheques, two cheques were honoured and other two cheques were dishonoured. The Trial Court considered both oral and

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:38722 CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2024

¶37

CNR: KAHC010572132024

¶38

documentary evidence placed on record in detail in paragraphs 38 to 42 wherein accused has admitted that he has given signed blank post dated cheques to the complainant towards the machine parts and during the cross examination, accused has admitted that cheques were belongs to him as well as the signature. The Trial Court held that scope and ambit of presumption to be raised as envisaged by the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act and comes to the conclusion that Ex.P1 and P2 - cheques were dishonoured which belongs to the accused and there is no rebuttal evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. Hence, the Trial Court convicted and sentence the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly convicted the accused. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:38722 CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2024

¶43

CNR: KAHC010572132024

¶44

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶45

The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the courts have committed an error in considering the defence of the petitioner and wrongly convicted the petitioner for the alleged offence. Hence, interference of this Court is required.

¶46

Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the courts have rightly considered the material on record since the accused himself has admitted the cheques and signature and hence, the order of both the courts do not suffers from any legality and correctness. Hence, interference of this Court does not require.

¶47

Having heard the counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that accused has issued four cheques in total for Rs.6,25,000/towards the transaction made with the complainant. Out of four cheques, two cheques for Rs.2 lakh each were dishonoured and other two cheques for Rs.2,25,000/- respectively were

¶48

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:38722 CRL.RP No. 1215 of 2024

¶51

CNR: KAHC010572132024

¶52

honoured. When issuance of cheques and signature was admitted by the petitioner, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that cheques were not issued cannot be accepted. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court considered the evidence of PW1 and also defence of DW1 in a proper perspective while convicting and sentencing the accused. Hence, the order of both the Courts do not suffers from its legality and correctness. The scope of revisional is very limited. If both the Courts fails to considered the material on record in a proper perspective, then only this Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction. But in the case on hand, no such circumstances are warranted. Thus, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶54

P. Hanumanthanayak v. Sri. Rajegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Hanumanthanayak v. Sri. Rajegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Salman Baig Vs Sri Fayaz Ahmed

Smt. Nanjamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Muddappa S/O Hanumanthappa Vs Sri Manjappa S/O Basappa

M S Prasanna @ Prasanna Bhat Vs Mrs. B K Jayashree

M S Prasanna @ Prasanna Bhat Vs Ajith Kumar

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Sri. K Ravindra Chandra Reddy