Dismissed¶55

T. Somashekara v. Sri S Harish

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2026CRL.RP/180/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under S.138 NI Act dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh, J., 23.07.2026) in CRL.RP No. 180 of 2025. Trial court judgment dated 01.04.2024 in C.C.No.263/2020 (V JMFC, Mysuru) and appellate judgment dated 04.11.2024 in Crl.A.No.169/2024 (VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru) confirmed. Cheque dated 18.09.2017 for Rs. 3,00,000/- returned 'accounts closed'; defences of cheque misuse and security cheque to S.B.M. Prasanna rejected for want of evidence; accused admitted issuance of cheque and gave no reply to legal notice; concurrent findings upheld as free from illegality.

What did the court decide?

The grounds urged before this Court — that the cheque was not given to the complainant — are the very same grounds that were not substantiated before the trial Court, where the accused admitted the cheque.

T. Somashekara Vs Sri S Harish — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused's defences — that the cheque was not given to the complainant (misuse) and that it was given as security to one S.B.M. Prasanna — were substantiated so as to upset the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

¶49

Ratio / Principle

The accused is not a layman, and this was taken note of by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

¶49

Key takeaways

The reasoning given by the trial Court and the appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality or correctness.ratio¶49
There is no probable defence by the accused and no rebuttal evidence before the Court; hence no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.), CRL.RP No. 180 of 2025, decided 23.07.2026 — Criminal revision under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. (S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) against concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — cheque dated 18.09.2017 towards a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- returned on presentation with the endorsement 'accounts closed'; no reply to legal notice — defences of misuse and of the cheque having been given as security to one S.B.M. Prasanna not proved; issuance of cheque admitted — accused, a businessman running a theatre, bar, restaurant and lodge, held not a layman — reasoning of the trial Court and the appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality or correctness; no probable defence or rebuttal evidence — revision petition dismissed, upholding the judgment dated 01.04.2024 in C.C.No.263/2020 (V JMFC, Mysuru) and the judgment dated 04.11.2024 in Crl.A.No.169/2024 (VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:38048 CRL.RP No. 180 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010059512025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 180 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

T. SOMASHEKARA S/O LATE THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. WARD No.1, 14 B ROAD, SARGUR TOWN, HD KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DIST-571 114. AND ALSO R/AT 1559, TILAK NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU-15.

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY P, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI S HARISH S/O LATE SHIVAIAH K, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT No.1956, BEHIND V V MARKET, K. R. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 004.

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. OMKAR MUTTAGI,ADVOCATE)

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:38048 CRL.RP No. 180 of 2025

¶22

CNR: KAHC010059512025

¶23

TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED ON 04.11.2024 IN CRL.A.NO.169/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 N.I. ACT AND ALSO JUDGEMENT PASSED ON 01.04.2024 IN C.C.NO.263/2020 ON THE FILE OF V JMFC AT MYSURU.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the

¶28

counsel for respondent.

¶29

This matter is listed for admission.

¶30

The factual matrix of the case of complainant

¶31

before the trial Court are that both the complainant and accused known to each other and on the acquaintance, accused approached the complainant to lend loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for his legal necessities. As per the request of the accused, complainant has lent Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused during first week of July 2017 and accused promised to repay the same within 2 months. But accused

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:38048 CRL.RP No. 180 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CNR: KAHC010059512025

¶35

failed to repay the same and hence on insistence he has issued the cheque dated 18.09.2017. When the cheque was presented, it was returned with an endorsement ‘accounts closed’. Thereafter, the legal notice was issued

¶36

and reply was not given and even not comply with the demand. Hence, the complaint is filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

¶37

In order to prove the case, the complainant examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P7. On the other hand accused examined himself as D.W.1 and also got marked document Exs.D1 and D2. There are two defence which was taken before the trial

¶38

Court that cheque was misused and in order to substantiate the same nothing is placed on record except examining himself as D.W.1 and however admits the issuance of cheque and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.18 of the trial Court and other defence was

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:38048 CRL.RP No. 180 of 2025

¶42

CNR: KAHC010059512025

¶43

taken that cheque was given to one Sri. S. B.M. Prasanna as a security while he entered into a mortgage deed with him, but accused has failed to prove the same with proper evidence and he was not examined. In order to substantiate that cheque was given to the said S.B.M. Prasanna also, nothing is placed on record. Even when the notice was issued also the same was served and the accused did not give any reply and after that only the defence was taken and the same was taken note of by the trial Court thereby convicting and sentence the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said order is challenged by the accused before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.169/2024. The appellate Court also has reassessed the material available on record and taken note of the suggestion made to P.W.1 in paragraph Nos.28 and 29 and also admitted that accused being the appellant

¶44

has filed the appeal and he also categorically admits that he is a businessman having a theatre, a bar and

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:38048 CRL.RP No. 180 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010059512025

¶48

restaurant and also having the lodge and running the same. The said fact is taken note of in paragraph No.21 of the judgment of the trial Court and confirms the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court by filing this present revision petition.

¶49

Having assessed both oral and documentary evidence of both the Courts, it is seen that the very same grounds are urged before this Court that cheque was not given to the complainant and the same is not substantiated before the trial Court but admitted the cheque and apart from that he is a businessman and having theatre and also the bar and restaurant. Further, the accused is not a layman and the same is taken note of by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and when such reasoning is given by the trial Court and appellate Court and the same do not suffer from any legality and correctness. Even there is no probable defence by the

¶50