Dismissed¶6

Ramachandra Rao v. Subbe Gowda

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138, 139

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026CRL.RP/164/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court single-judge ORAL ORDER (H.P. Sandesh, J., 20.07.2026) dismissing CRL.RP No. 164 of 2024 under S.397 r/w S.401 CrPC. Concurrent conviction under S.138 NI Act in C.C.No.4975/2018, affirmed in Crl.A.No.197/2022, upheld: cheque dated 25.10.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- dishonoured 'exceeds arrangement'; chit-fund/June-2018 defence documents Exs.D1, D2, D2(a) held prior to the August 2018 loan; Rs.50,000 repayment claim unsubstantiated; S.139 presumption unrebutted; non-reply to notice = afterthought. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The defence documents Exs.D1 and D2 and D2(a) relate to payments of June 2018, prior to the present transaction of August 2018, and therefore do not negate it; P.W.1 gave an explanation regarding the differing transaction. ¶4

Ramachandra Rao Vs Subbe Gowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision petition calls for interference with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act recorded by the trial Court in C.C.No.4975/2018 and confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.197/2022. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

There is no ground to entertain the revision petition; the orders of the trial Court and appellate Court, considering the ground and reasoning, do not suffer from illegality or incorrectness, and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

¶4

Key takeaways

The contention that only Rs.50,000/- was taken and that it was repaid is not substantiated, and there is no rebuttal evidence displacing the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.ratio¶4
No reply was given to the legal notice, and the defence taken is nothing but an afterthought, against the specific case that the amount was availed in August 2018 and the cheque dated 25.10.2018 was bounced.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 139 — Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against concurrent conviction — Petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.08.2018 and issued post-dated cheque dated 25.10.2018 for Rs2,00,000/-, returned with endorsement 'exceeds arrangement'; legal notice unanswered. Defence of want of financial capacity of complainant, chit fund transactions (Exs.D1, D2, D2(a) showing June 2018 payments) and alleged repayment of Rs.50,000/- rejected: June 2018 entries predate the August 2018 transaction, repayment unsubstantiated, presumption under S.139 unrebutted, and failure to reply to notice showed the defence to be an afterthought. Judgment dated 13.09.2023 of the II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan in Crl.A.No.197/2022, confirming conviction dated 29.10.2022 by the VI Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan in C.C.No.4975/2018, held free of illegality; revision petition dismissed. (H.P. Sandesh, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:37167 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010053302024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 164 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMACHANDRA RAO S/O CHALIVARAJ AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS WARD NO 16, 3RD MAIN ROAD 12TH CROSS SHANTHINAGARA HASSAN - 573201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SUBBE GOWDA S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS SOGASU NILAYA WARD NO 16, 3RD MAIN ROAD 9TH CROSS 80 FEET ROAD SHANTHINAGAR HASSAN - 573201

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. KAVITHA H C,ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:37167 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CNR: KAHC010053302024

¶22

SESSIONS COURT, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.197/2022 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN IN C.C.NO.4975/2018 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND 2) ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT IN C.C.NO.4975/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITION.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and

¶27

also the counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶28

This revision petition is filed against the

¶29

concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in CC No. 4975/2018 passed by the trial Court and also confirmation order passed in Criminal Appeal No.197/2022 by the appellate Court.

¶30

The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court that the complainant and accused are known to each other and the accused on 02.08.2018

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:37167 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CNR: KAHC010053302024

¶35

had availed the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2018 and

¶36

assured that he will repay the said amount. Further, the accused has issued post dated Cheque dated 25.10.2018 for an amount of Rs2,00,000/- in favour of complainant towards discharge of loan on the day on which he received the amount. The said cheque was presented for encashment and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘exceeds arrangement’. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused. Inspite of it, the accused neither reply to the said notice nor he come forward to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured before the trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

¶37

In order to prove the case, the complainant is examined as P.W.1. and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The accused also examined himself as D.W.1 and

¶38

got marked documents as Exs.D1, D2 and D2(a). The

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:37167 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2024

¶42

CNR: KAHC010053302024

¶43

main defence is that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend the amount and the two cheques were issued to the complainant in relation to chit fund transaction and even though the amount was taken by the accused in relation to the said chit fund transaction, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the account of complainant. Having perused Exs.D1 and D2 and also D2(a), that is in the month of June 2018 but this transaction is of the year 2018 in the month of August and that is prior to the present transaction and P.W.1 also given explanation with regard to different transaction and also it has to be noted that when the notice was issued and the same was heard and no reply was given with regard to the financial capacity is concerned. Document of Ex.P6 is also got marked i.e. copy of lease agreement dated 23.04.2018 and documents with regard to contention that only taken an amount of Rs.50,000/-, the same is repaid is not substantiated and there is no any rebuttal evidence as under Section 139 of Negotiable

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:37167 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2024

¶45

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010053302024

¶48

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act

¶49

for short). The trial Court accepted the case of complainant and judgment of conviction and order of sentence is passed against the accused. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.197/2022. The appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly considering the arguments advanced by the complainant before the appellate Court, taken note of in paragraph Nos.32, 33 and 34, come to conclusion that record clearly discloses that there is transaction between the complainant and accused and also the lending of loan amount, so also capacity to pay the said loan amount is taken note of particularly considering the document at Ex.P6 and confirmed the same.

¶50

The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the grounds

¶51

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:37167 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2024

¶54

CNR: KAHC010053302024

¶55

which have been urged and defence evidence also led and documents Exs.D1,D2 and D2(a) is also marked. Further, in respect of payment of Rs.50,000/-, it is very clear the same is not taken note of by both the Courts.

¶56

The counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that prior to this transaction and the same is also explained by the P.W.1 that the said transaction is in respect of chit transaction and not with the complainant but with complainant’s wife. Having reconsidered the material and records of Exs.D1 and D2 is in respect of payment in the month of June,2018. But it is the specific case of the complainant that amount was availed in the month of August 2018 and cheque was given on 25.10.2018 and the same was bounced and when the notice was given, no reply was given and the defence which was taken is nothing but an afterthought. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and there is no any error on the part of the trial Court and

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:37167 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

CNR: KAHC010053302024

¶60

appellate Court considering the ground as well as reasoning and the same not suffers from its legality and correctness. Accordingly the revision petition is

¶61

dismissed .

¶62

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶63

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Ramachandra Rao v. Subbe Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandra Rao v. Subbe Gowda

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 Vijay Naik Vs Uday Shetty

Sri.R.K.Surendra Babu Vs Smt Girija

Sri Bhojegowda Vs G B Maniyamma

M/S.S.Tech Security System Vs M/S Computer Mega Mart

Sri M Mahesh Reddy Vs M/S Swikruti Ventures Private Limited

A N Srinivas Vs R Srinivas