Conviction under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of a cheque issued to repay advance sale consideration was challenged in revision on the ground that statutory notice was not served. The High Court found RPAD and certificate-of-posting evidence proved service and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1827 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI B L CHETHAN S/O SRI. B T LAKSHMEESHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PARTNER ELA DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS MYSURU - 570 009 ALSO AVAILABLE AT R/O NO.1046, G & H BLOCK KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSURU-570 023
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI S CHANDRA S/O SRI H SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT R-161, RANGERS BLOCK SOMWARPET TOWN KODAGU-571 236
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KARTHIK N, ADVOCATE)
NC: 2026:KHC:30688 CRL.RP No. 1827 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2024 PASSED BY PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMWARPET IN C.C.NO.115/2021 AND ETC.
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 revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 03.07.2024 passed in C.C.No.115/2021 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.106/2024 by the Appellate Court.
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
before the Trial Court is that the complainant and the accused are well known to each other. The accused is the partner to the ELA Developers and Builders, a construction firm at Mysore City. The accused had agreed to sell a
HC-KAR
proposed residential site to the extent of 30 x 40 feet which is situated at Yadahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore District for the sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant. In this regard, the accused on 10.05.2011 has received an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- from the complainant through demand draft towards the advance sale consideration. The accused on 01.03.2012 also further received an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the complainant. In all an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as part of sale consideration and also entered into an agreement. When the sale did not come through, issued the cheque in connection with the repayment of the advance sale consideration. When the cheque was presented, the same was dishonored and the same was intimated to the accused through post, but he did not come forward to make the payment. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty.
complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P9. The Trial Court considering both
NC: 2026:KHC:30688 CRL.RP No. 1827 of 2025
HC-KAR
oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the accused had issued Ex.P1 - Cheque towards repayment of the amount which was received as advance sale consideration and the complainant succeeded in proving his case. Hence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.
the petitioner is that notice was not served. But complainant produced the document of Ex.P5-track consignment; RPAD
HC-KAR
and also legal notice sent through certificating of posting to show that notice was served. The counsel for the petitioner also did not deny the address which is mentioned in the legal notice as the same is not belongs to the accused. When such being the case, the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies and there is a presumption and there no rebuttal evidence. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C NIRANJAN
YADAV vs D RAVI KUMAR reported in 2024 KHC 22939 taken note of the case of FAKIRAPPA vs SHIDDALINGAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2002 KAR 181 wherein discussed regarding the settled law on this aspect. The trial court and also the appellate court have taken note of the transaction between the parties and also the payment and issuance of the cheque and considered that there is no any rebuttal evidence. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition since both the courts have taken note of the documents particularly, Ex.P1 and Ex.P9, issuance of cheque as well as the transaction between both of them and come to the conclusion that instead of receipt of the money by the
NC: 2026:KHC:30688 CRL.RP No. 1827 of 2025
HC-KAR
accused, did not repay the same and it is not the case of the petitioner that he has repaid the amount. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the revision
petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act could be interfered with in revision when notice service was disputed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C Niranjan Yadav vs D Ravi KumarRelied on¶7
2024 KHC 22939
Fakirappa vs Shiddalingappa and AnotherReferred¶7
ILR 2002 KAR 181 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri B L Chethan
Sri S Chandra
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
