Dismissed¶¶50

Sri. Vijayakumar B.C v. M/S Mci Bangalore Finance (R)

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1591/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NI Act Section 139 presumption unrebutted; cheque returned with endorsement 'payment stopped'; RTGS loan of Rs.30,00,000 (loan account No.260 of 2018) at 21% interest with penal interest agreed in the loan application; accused absent from witness box; Rs.22,50,000 security deposit defence (Thimmegowda/Raghavendra Gowda injunction suit pending); limited scope of criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.; concurrent findings of trial court and appellate court upheld; revision dismissed — High Court of Karnataka, H.P. Sandesh J., CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. ¶¶50

Sri. Vijayakumar B.C Vs M/S Mci Bangalore Finance (R) — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

¶¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act arising from the cheque issued by the accused was rebutted by cogent proof, given that the accused did not enter the witness box. +2 more

¶¶46

Court's answer

The accused did not enter the witness box (except cross-examining PW1) and made no efforts to rebut the presumption by cogent proof; the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act therefore stood unrebutted.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

Execution of the document Ex.P1 and the loan documents, availing of the loan, and the liability are all not in dispute; hence the very loan cannot be disputed where the cheque was given acknowledging the liability.

¶¶46

Key takeaways

Interest and penal interest were expressly agreed in the loan application itself; therefore the contention that the 21% rate was exorbitant does not render the loan disputable when the cheque acknowledged the liability.ratio¶¶46
The scope of revision is very limited: revisional powers can be exercised only if the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffer from illegality and correctness; in this case no such circumstances were warranted, hence no ground existed to admit the revision petition.ratio¶¶49-50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the concurrent judgments of the trial court (C.C.No.1150/2019, dated 05.02.2022) and the appellate court (Crl.A.No.276/2022, dated 03.11.2023) in a cheque-dishonour complaint was DISMISSED by the High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh J.). Held: (i) execution of Ex.P1 and the loan documents, the availing of the loan, and the liability were not in dispute, and the loan cannot be disputed where the cheque was given acknowledging the liability; (ii) interest and penal interest were expressly agreed in the loan application itself, so the plea that the 21% interest was exorbitant furnished no ground; (iii) the accused did not enter the witness box except cross-examining PW1 and produced no cogent proof rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act; and (iv) the scope of revision is very limited — revisional powers arise only where the impugned orders suffer from illegality and correctness, which was not shown here.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:32916 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1591 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR B C S/O SRI CHANDRAHASA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PROPRIETOR : M/S SATISH STORES NO.2, DVG ROAD GANDHIBAZAR BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU – 560004

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. H RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed M/S MCI BANGALORE FINANCE (R) by DEVIKA M NO.16, MARUTHI ARCADE, 2^ND FLOOR Location: HIGH 4^TH BLOCK, MARUTHI NAGAR COURT OF NAGARABHVI 1^ST STAGE KARNATAKA NEAR CHANDRALAYOUT BUS DEPOT BANGALORE - 560072 REP. BY ITS MANAGER PUBLIC RELATIONS SRI N MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRI NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:32916 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2023

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 03.11.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.276/2022 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64), AT BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 05.02.2022 passed in C.C.No.1150/2019 and also against the judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.276/2022.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused approached the complainant to avail a short term loan of Rs.30,00,000/- for his business purpose and for his immediate need and agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 21% per annum and also agreed to return the loan amount within short time. Thus, the complainant lent an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- under the loan

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:32916 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

account No.260 of 2018 to the accused by way of RTGS. When accused did not repay the amount as agreed, cheque was issued and when the said Cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘payment stopped’. Then, notice was issued by the complainant to the accused and the same was served but the accused failed to repay the amount as agreed. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. Accused was secured and he did not plead guilty.

¶27

In order to prove the case of the complainant, the Manager of the complainant company examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P17. In order to substantiate the defence of the accused, it is contented that accused took commercial building of Thimmegowda for running a hotel in the name of his son and his wife and he gave a security deposit of Rs.22,50,000/- to Thimmegowda. During running of his business, the son of Thimmegowda started disturbing his business and forcibly trying to take back the possession of his commercial properties from the accused. Therefore, the father of Raghavendra Gowda i.e., Thimmegowda, requested the accused that he would return his

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:32916 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

security deposit amount and requested for blank cheque for in between vacating the same. Therefore, he requested the complainant firm to transfer an amount of Rs.22,50,000/- from complainant firm to the accused account. The present accused filed a suit against Raghavendra Gowda for the relief of injunction and the said suit is pending. Accused contended that he never took any loan from the complainant firm and he had not executed any documents in favour of the complainant firm.

¶32

The Trial Court taking into note of the fact held that though PW1 is cross examined in length, nothing is elicited from the mouth of the PW1 and held that the amount was transferred to the account of the accused through RTGS to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- and the same is not in dispute. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in paragraphs 17 to 19 and comes to the conclusion that mere explanation is not sufficient to rebut the presumption and same is not rebutted under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court,

¶34

the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:32916 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The Appellate Court also having considered both oral and documentary evidence, made an observation in paragraph 27 that non-taking any legal action either against the Thimmegowda or against the complainant for the alleged misutilisation of cheque and non-entering the witness box by accused are the strongest circumstances to draw inference against the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶39

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

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no dispute with regard to availing of loan and execution of the document of Ex.P1 to P17. But exorbitantly charged 21% interest on the loan amount and there was no any license to the complainant.

¶41

The learned counsel for the respondent would

¶42

vehemently contend that the Trial Court rightly considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and 21%

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32916 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

interest is not exorbitant since the same was agreed by the accused at the time of availing the loan itself including penal interest. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there is exorbitant rate of interest cannot be accepted.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the execution of the document of Ex.P1 and loan documents is not in dispute and having availed the loan is also not disputed and liability is also not disputed. The only technical point rised before this court is that the interest charged at 21% p.m. is exorbitant. But in the loan application itself it is agreed to pay the interest and penal interest. Under the circumstances, the very loan cannot be disputed when the cheque was given acknowledging the liability. The fact is that the accused did not enter into the witness box, except cross examining the PW1. The accused has not made any efforts to rebut the presumption by cogent proof. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition. The scope of revision is very limited. Only if the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness,

¶47