Ramaswamy, Vs Puttappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Ramaswamy, Vs Puttappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a dishonour bearing the endorsement 'drawer's signature differs' (alongside 'funds insufficient') falls within the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as contended by the revision petitioner. +2 more

Court's answer

The contention of the revision petitioner that the 'drawer's signature differs' endorsement takes the dishonour outside Section 138 N.I. Act cannot be accepted: both the trial Court and the appellate Court took note of the endorsements, and the accused's mutually inconsistent defences (4 cheques issued as security versus cheque issued to Ramanjanappa for chit transaction) were left unexplained and unsubstantiated.

Ratio / Principle

There is no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of the N.I. Act; consequently the revision petition cannot be admitted.

Key takeaways

Since the scope of revision extends only to examining whether the orders of both Courts suffer from illegality or incorrectness, and no such ground was found, the revision petition does not merit entertainment and was dismissed.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C.) against appellate confirmation of conviction under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — cheque of Rs.3,40,000/- returned with endorsement ‘funds insufficient and drawer’s signature differs’. P.W.1 (son of the deceased complainant, brought on record as legal representative) admitted in cross-examination the signature difference and the underlying transaction, while the accused's alternate defences — that four cheques were merely given as security, or that the cheque was issued to one Ramanjanappa towards a chit transaction and misused — found no evidentiary support, the accused neither entering the witness box nor producing rebuttal evidence. Held: (i) the plea that a 'signature differs' dishonour escapes S.138 cannot be accepted where both Courts below noted the endorsements and the defences stand unsubstantiated; (ii) absence of rebuttal evidence against the S.139 presumption forecloses admission of the revision; and (iii) revisional scope being confined to legality and correctness of the orders below, the petition was dismissed.

NC: 2026:KHC:30474 CRL.RP No. 1743 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1743 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

RAMASWAMY,

S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT MANGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NEERAJA KARANTH,ADVOCATE)

AND:

PUTTAPPA,

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DEAD BY LR RAVICHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE PUTTAPPA, R/AT CHANNAKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED 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 DATED 20.08.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN CRL.A.NO.75/2024 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 22.04.2024 IN C.C.NO.945/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30474 CRL.RP No. 1743 of 2025

HC-KAR

J.M.F.C, MALUR CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner.

The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the trial Court is that the complainant and accused are friends since 10 years and with that friendship, the accused requested the complainant for financial help of Rs.3,40,000/- for the purpose of family legal necessities. Accordingly, the complainant has paid hand loan of Rs.3,40,000/- on 18.07.2016 to the accused and the accused agreed to repay the same within 3 months. After 3 months, the accused avoided the complainant and has not repaid Rs.3,40,000/- after several demands. When the complainant approached the

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30474 CRL.RP No. 1743 of 2025

HC-KAR

accused on 27.04.2017, the accused in order to repay the

loan, issued a post dated Cheque for a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- on 28.04.2017. The accused approached the complainant and requested the complainant to present the Cheque on 02.05.2017. Thereafter, the complainant presented the Cheque for encashment and the same is returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient and drawer’s signature differs’. The complainant got issued legal notice the accused on 08.05.2017 demanding him to repay the said amount. But the said notice returned with postal shara ‘intimation served not claimed’. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken against the accused. Thereafter, the accused was secured and he denied the case of complainant. During the pendency of the matter, the complainant is reported as dead and his son is brought on record as legal representative of complainant. As such, the son of complainant was examined as P.W.1 and he deposes that his father Puttappa and accused has settled the matter for an

NC: 2026:KHC:30474 CRL.RP No. 1743 of 2025

4 -

HC-KAR

amount of Rs.20,000/- and the same was denied by him when such suggestion was made by learned counsel appearing for accused. However, in the crossexamination, the said statement was admitted and transaction between his father and the accused was also admitted. The defence taken by P.W.1 that the accused has issued 4 Cheques to the complainant as a security and on the other hand in the same cross-examination of P.W.1 that the accused has given Cheque to the Ramanjanappa for the purpose of chit transaction and the Courts below also have taken note of the fact that in terms of the bank endorsement that the Cheques are returned for ‘funds insufficient and the drawers signature differs’. In order to prove the case that the Cheque was misused by P.W.1 and the same is issued to Ramanjanappa for the purpose of chit transaction, the accused did not come forward to give any evidence and even enter the witness box and substantiate the same. As such, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no rebuttal evidence and the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30474 CRL.RP No. 1743 of 2025

HC-KAR

appellate Court also while re-examining the material available on record has taken note of the fact that the defence was taken which was discussed in paragraph No.22 of its judgment that the service of notice is also proved and the accused has not repaid the Cheque amount till this day and not placed any probable defence and also there is no preponderance of probability and accepted the reasoning given by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contended that neither the complainant nor the Court attempted to compare the admitted signature of the accused with the signature on the Cheque, or proved that the signature on the Cheque belongs to accused. Further, he submits that the Courts have overlooked one of the reasons for dishonour, ‘drawer’s signature differs’ which does not bring the dishnour within the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30474 CRL.RP No. 1743 of 2025

HC-KAR

for short). The Courts below have observed that the accused has not replied to the notice and thus, failed to set up the defence. Ironically, the Courts have overlooked that the notice was not duly served on the accused.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also on perusal of material on record particularly, with regard to the fact that signature differs and also the fact that funds insufficient. Even P.W.1 admits that there is difference in the signature of the accused and the accused did not place on record how the Cheque has gone to the hands of the complainant and he categorically admits that the accused has issued 4 Cheques to the complainant as a security but there is no explanation to the said defence. Apart from that other defence was taken that cheques were issued to one Ramanjanappa towards chit transaction and the same was misused. In order to substantiate the said evidence, the defence taken by the accused except denying at one stretch that he has issued 4 cheques to the complainant as

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30474 CRL.RP No. 1743 of 2025

HC-KAR

a security and on the other stretch, the Cheque was issued

to one Ramanjanappa towards chit transaction. Under the circumstances, the very contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted and the trial Court as well as the appellate Court taken note of the said aspect. There is no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and the question of admitting this revision petition does not arise.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and question of considering this revision does not arise since there is no rebuttal evidence. The scope of revision is only to examine whether the orders of both Courts suffer from its legality and its correctness. Hence, the revision petition is

dismissed .

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31