Sri Akrama Khan Vs Syed Jamalauddin — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Akrama Khan Vs Syed Jamalauddin — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the concurrent conviction and sentence stand.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act was duly served on the accused, given that it was sent to House No.5/1, 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura while he resides at House No.74, 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura. +3 more

Court's answer

Service-of-notice contention fails: the address discrepancy was immaterial because the accused admitted both addresses (House No.74 and House No.5/1, 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura); service of notice, including service on his father, was discussed in paragraphs 16–18 of the trial Court's judgment, and the petitioner had not disclosed that the notice was served on his father.

Ratio / Principle

On rebuttal of the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139: although the notice was served and no reply was given, the accused sought to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant; the appellate Court's reliance on Rangappa (paragraphs 28–29 of the Apex Court judgment) was taken into account and endorsed.

Key takeaways

The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' — that if there is an incorrect statement in the evidence the entire evidence becomes false — cannot be applied in Indian courts.obiter¶51
The defence that the cheques were stolen was unsubstantiated: no complaint was lodged and no evidence was placed before the Court that the cheques were stolen (sentence continues from para 57 into paras 60–61).ratio¶60
Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only where the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court suffer from illegality or incorrectness; exercise of that power was not warranted in this case.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026, H.P. Sandesh, J., order dated 01-07-2026) against concurrent convictions under Section 138 NI Act — trial conviction and sentence dated 10.10.2018 by the XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C No. 17564/2016, confirmed by judgment dated 13.01.2026 of the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-62), Bengaluru in Crl.A. No. 2244/2018 — DISMISSED. The contentions that the Section 138(b) notice was sent to a wrong address (No.5/1 instead of No.74, 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura), that the appellate Court merely compared signatures on the notice and sale deed, and that the complainant lacked financial capacity did not prevail: the accused admitted both addresses and had not disclosed service of the notice on his father, and the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' cannot be applied in Indian courts. The allegation that the cheques were stolen was unsupported by any complaint or evidence. Revisional power being exercisable only where the lower courts' judgments suffer from illegality or incorrectness, no error was found; the appellate Court's reliance on Rangappa (presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act) was endorsed.

NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 592 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI AKRAMA KHAN S/O AMEER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 74,8TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 026.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ABDUL SAB C B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SYED JAMALAUDDIN S/O SYED ZAHEERUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1267, 14TH CROSS, 29TH MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560076.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. R LOKESH ,ADVOCATE)

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 TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 13.01.2026 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-62), BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

HC-KAR

NO. 2244/2018, AND TO SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENT THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C NO. 17564/2016 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

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and

also the learned counsel for respondent.

2. This matter is listed for admission.

This revision petition is filed against the

concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the trial Court are that the complainant and accused are family friends and well acquainted to each other. The accused approached the complainant during first week of July, 2015 and borrowed hand loan of Rs.3,40,000/- for his daughter’s marriage. The accused

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

HC-KAR

assured to repay the said amount within three months. But the said amount has not been repaid by the accused and instead, he issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/- respectively in favour of the complainant. On instruction, the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment and the same is returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Though accused was informed about dishonour of cheque, he did not respond. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 18.12.2015 and the same was served on 19.12.2015, inspite of it, the accused did not repay the said amount. Hence, the complaint is filed against the accused and the cognizance was taken and did not plead guilty and claims trial.

In order to prove the case, the complainant examined as P.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. Thereafter, the accused was subjected to recording of Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the accused was denied the averments made in the complaint and

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

HC-KAR

examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.D1 to D4. Having considered the material on record, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.’ Act for short). The said order was challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.2244/2018 and the appellate Court reassessed the evidence available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court in the present revision.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would mainly contend on the ground that with regard to non-compliance with Section 138(b) of N.I.Act which requires the payee to give a written notice to the drawer of Cheque within 30 days of dishonour. The complainant sent the notice to 5/1, 8^th Main Road, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru. But he admits that he resides in house No.74, a 8^th Main Road, Padarayanapura for the last 35 years. Further, it is contended that during the course of cross-

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

HC-KAR

examination, it is stated that the respondent was a family friend and well acquainted with the revision petitioner. If the respondent truly shared such a close relationship, it is inconceivable that he would be unaware of the actual place of revision petitioner’s residence at No.74, 8^th Main Road, Padarayanapura. Further, it contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court erred in considering the fact in respect of service of notice to the accused wherein the appellate Court compared the signatures in the notice as well as in the sale deed. He also contended that the complainant has failed to establish his financial capacity in lending the amount to accused.

Having considered the learned counsel for

revision petitioner and also grounds urged in the revision petition with regard to service of notice is concerned that, the accused resides in house No.74, 8^th Main Road, Padarayanapura, Bangalore, but the said notice was sent to the address where he resides i.e.,No.5/1, 8^th Main Road, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru. However, he has to adduce

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

HC-KAR

that he resides in only one address. During the course of cross-examination, accused denies that House No.5/1 is not his house but he admits that the house No.74 and i.e., 8^th Main Road and the trial Court taken note of the said aspect in paragraph No.16 of the judgment. All these documents are only in respect of disputing the address of the accused. However, after taking into account of the service of notice against the father, comes to the conclusion that the address is mainly mentioned in different addresses but admits both the addresses that is discussed in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 of the judgment of the trial Court regarding service of notice, the petitioner also not disclosed that it was served on his father and hence the first contention that no service of notice can be accepted. Apart from that, when the cheques are marked but denies the signature and not signed the document at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and also denied that those signatures are not belongs to him, but also admits that the cheques belongs

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

HC-KAR

to him and also the petitioner is having the account in the said bank.

Learned counsel would submit that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not considered the legal aspect of the case. Further, the trial Court in detail in paragraph Nos.16 to 18 of its judgment taken note of the fact that the accused has taken false defence before the trial Court that signature on the Cheque does not belongs to him and in paragraph No.20, the trial Court has taken note of the same. The accused has not denied his signature at Ex.P2. But principles of legal maxim “ Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus ”, i.e., if there is an incorrect statement in the evidence, then the entire evidence becomes false cannot be applied in Indian Courts. Further, the trial Court has also taken note of defence which was

taken by the accused and the same has been falsified regarding service of notice as well as the cheques are concerned and comes to the conclusion that there is no such document produced before the Court and convicted

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

HC-KAR

the accused. The appellate Court also re-appreciated the material available on record and also taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 wherein it has reiterated and summarized the principles relating to the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. Further, with regard to service of notice is concerned, even though notice was served and no reply was given. But after that, false witnesses’ evidence are taken and accused is trying to rebut the presumption lying in favour of the complainant and the same was taken note of in paragraph Nos.28 and 29 of the judgment of the Apex Court.

9. Having considered the reasoning given by the

trial Court as well as the appellate Court and also the defence which was taken that is not falsified with regard to the service of notice as well as issuance of the Cheque and the same was not sent to the handwriting expert and another contention that the cheques were stolen. But to

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026

HC-KAR

that effect, no complaint was given and no evidence before

the Court that cheque was also stolen. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition as there is no error on the part of the trial court as well as the appellate Court. This Court can only exercise the powers under the revision if the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and the same is not warranted in the case on hand. Hence, no ground is made out to exercise the revision jurisdiction in the present case.

10. In view of the discussions made above, the revision petition is dismissed .

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39