Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri. Shivasagar Vs Smt. Mahadevamma — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri. Shivasagar Vs Smt. MahadevammaSri. Shivasagar v. Smt. Mahadevamma

Dismissed¶¶48

Sri. Shivasagar v. Smt. Mahadevamma

Negotiable Instruments Act – cheque-dishonour prosecution

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026CRL.RP/630/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025; decided 13-07-2026 by Justice H.P.Sandesh (single judge, author). Revision against concurrent conviction in cheque-dishonour case (C.C No.206/2021, V JMFC Mysuru; confirmed in CRL.APPL.No.283/2024, 21.02.2025). Key phrases: legally enforceable debt; Section 139 NI Act presumption unrebutted; failure to lead defence evidence; nothing elicited in cross-examination of P.W.1; no interference with concurrent findings; revision dismissed. Statutes: S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.; S.313 Cr.P.C.; S.139 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No precedents cited. Petitioner: Shivasagar (adv. Lakshmikanth K); Respondent/complainant: Mahadevamma (adv. Anusha Asundi); cheque amount Rs.4,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The accused led no defence evidence to substantiate his defence, and the evidence of the complainant was not rebutted by the accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent conclusions of the trial court and the first appellate court that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt suffer from error and require interference by this Court in revision.

Court's answer

The accused led no defence evidence to substantiate his defence, and the evidence of the complainant was not rebutted by the accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Ratio / Principle

On the accused's defence (that the complainant assured a loan through Doreswamy @ Basappa but no such amount was paid), the accused did not lead any defence evidence to substantiate his case.

Key takeaways

Where the orders of the courts below do not suffer from illegality or incorrectness, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise; no grounds were found to admit the revision petition.ratio¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act — cheque-dishonour prosecution — revisional jurisdiction under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. — concurrent findings of trial court (V JMFC, Mysuru, order dt. 02.07.2024 in C.C No.206/2021) and first appellate court (IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, CRL.APPL.NO.283/2024, dt. 21.02.2025) convicting the accused on a complaint alleging loan of Rs.4,00,000/- borrowed in February 2019 and dishonour of cheque dated 28.12.2020 endorsed 'funds insufficient'. HELD: the accused did not lead any defence evidence to substantiate his defence that no loan was paid; the evidence of the complainant (P.W.1) was not rebutted under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the orders of the courts below suffering from no illegality or incorrectness, no grounds existed to admit the revision. Petition dismissed (Coram: H.P.SANDESH, J.; decision dated 13.07.2026).

A

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 630 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHIVASAGAR S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.338,GANAPATHY AASHRAMA POST,BANDIPALYA VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK,MYSURU-570 001.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O PUTTABUDDI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.178, 15TH CROSS,4TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU CITY,MYSURU-570 025.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. ANUSHA ASUNDI,ADVOCATE)

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 SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2024 PASSED IN C.C NO.206/2021, BY THE LEARNED JUDGE COURT OF V JMFC AT MYSURU AND CONFIRMED IN

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025

HC-KAR

CRL.APPL.NO.283/2024 DATED 21.02.2025 BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU.

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 counsel appearing to the respondent.

The factual matrix of the case of complainant is that both complainant and accused were having acquaintance with each other, in the month of February, 2019, the accused approached and borrowed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for his legal necessities and also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1% per month and going to repay the entire amount within 2 to 3 months. But the same was not repaid and hence demanded that the loan amount should be repaid. For this, the accused issued a cheque at 28.12.2020 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The same was presented and returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025

HC-KAR

complaint was filed. The cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the trial court. He did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked document Exs. P1 to P11. But P.W.1 was fully cross examined and during the course of cross examination, nothing was elicited and only 8 documents are confronted by the accused and the same is marked as Exs.D1 to D8. Thereafter, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The trial Court having considered the oral and document evidence particularly, the defence taken with regard to financial assistance, he approached the complainant and promised that he would get the loan from his mother-inlaw by name Doreswamy @ Basappa, who is none other than complainant’s sister’s husband. No such amount was paid but cheques were collected and the same was not returned. The only defence is that he has not taken any loan. But no reply was given. The trial Court had

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025

HC-KAR

considered both evidence in paragraph Nos.23, 24 and 25. When the capacity of the complainant was questioned, the same is taken note of that the sale is made in the year 2016 for an amount of Rs.14,75,000/- and he has also received a share amount by selling the property and when the accused did not choose to lead defence evidence and considering the cross examination of P.W.1, comes to the conclusion that there was no any rebuttal evidence and thereby convicted and sentence the accused. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.283/2024. The first appellate Court also having considered the material on record and particularly, the issuance of Cheque and issuance of notice and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination. The appellate Court reassessed both oral and documentary evidence and comes to the conclusion that, the trial Court has not committed an error and confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed before this Court.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025

HC-KAR

The main contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that both the Courts fails to take note of the defence of the accused. The specific case of the accused is that both the Courts come to erroneous conclusion that the cheque is issued towards the legally enforceable debt and hence, requires interference by this Court.

Learned counsel for respondent has contended that both the Courts have failed to taken note of the fact that during the course of cross examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and the trial Court and the appellate Court having considered the material on record has rightly convicted and sentence and no interference is required.

Having heard the counsel appearing for revision

petitioner and the respondent and also taking note of the factual aspect of the case that it is the case of complainant that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was borrowed in the

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025

HC-KAR

month of February 2019 and on insistence, cheque was issued on 28.02.2020 and when the cheque was presented and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the notice was also issued against the accused. The defence evidence which was led by the accused is also considered by the trial court in paragraph No.14 of its judgment that when accused approached the complainant. The complainant assured that she will get the loan from her brother-in-law by name Doreswamy @ Basappa. But no such amount was paid to the accused and did not led any defence evidence with regard to this defence is concerned to substantiate his case. Further, the evidence of complainant was not rebutted by the accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. When such being the case, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise, unless orders passed by the Courts below suffers from its legality and correctness, Hence, I do not

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025

HC-KAR

find any grounds to admit the revision petition and the

same is accordingly dismissed .

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the concurrent conclusions of the trial court and the first appellate court that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt suffer from error and require interference by this Court in revision.¶¶37
The court held
The accused led no defence evidence to substantiate his defence, and the evidence of the complainant was not rebutted by the accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.ratio¶¶43

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Cr.P.C.397 read with 401¶¶16 313¶¶30
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881139¶¶43

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Conviction order dated 02.07.2024 in C.C No.206/2021 by the V JMFC at Mysuru in a cheque-dishonour complaint, confirmed on 21.02.2025 in CRL.APPL.NO.283/2024 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru; revision seeks setting aside of both.¶¶16
Judge Court of V JMFC at Mysuru (trial); IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (first appellate court) · 02.07.2024 (trial order); confirmation dated 21.02.2025
Prior proceeding
Complainant's case: loan of Rs.4,00,000/- borrowed by the accused in February 2019, repayable in 2-3 months with interest at 1% per month.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Accused issued a cheque dated 28.12.2020 for Rs.4,00,000/-, which on presentment was returned with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Complaint filed; cognizance taken; accused secured before the trial court, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
At trial, complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P11; in cross-examination nothing was elicited and eight defence documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D8; statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
Trial court considered both sides' evidence, found no rebuttal evidence, and convicted and sentenced the accused.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Conviction challenged in appeal in Crl.A.No.283/2024; the first appellate court reassessed the oral and documentary evidence and confirmed the trial court's order.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Appellate confirmation identified in the cause title as CRL.APPL.NO.283/2024 dated 21.02.2025 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.¶¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SRI. SHIVASAGAR S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.338,GANAPATHY AASHRAMA POST,BANDIPALYA VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK,MYSURU-570 001.¶¶8
SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K
respondent
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O PUTTABUDDI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.178, 15TH CROSS,4TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU CITY,MYSURU-570 025.¶¶13
SMT. ANUSHA ASUNDI

Coram

AI extract

H.P.SANDESHauthor¶¶21

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 13 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 22 Apr 2025
Case no.: CRL.RP/630/2025
CNR: KAHC010273742025
Topic: Cheque Dishonour
Bench: H.p.sandesh
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CRL.RP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from H.p.sandesh

Sri Annanagouda R H Vs Sri Aravindmurthy
10 Jul 2026
Sri Annanagouda R H Vs Sri Aravindmurthy
10 Jul 2026
Sri Chandra Shekar Vs Sri a Somanna Since Dead by His Lrs
10 Jul 2026
Sri C S Nagesh Vs Smt. Puttajyothi C S
13 Jul 2026
Mr a Muniraju Vs Mr N Nanjegowda
13 Jul 2026
K N Sridevi Vs Anjanappa M G
13 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri. Shivasagar v. Smt. Mahadevamma, CRL.RP/630/2025 (KA), decided on 13 July 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Cr.P.C.397 read with 401 · 313
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881139

View all statutes

Procedural history8

Conviction order dated 02.07.2024 in C.C No.206/2021 by the V JMFC at Mysuru in a cheque-dishonour complaint, confirmed on 21.02.2025 in CRL.APPL.NO.283/2024 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru; revision seeks setting aside of both.Judge Court of V JMFC at Mysuru (trial); IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (first appellate court) · 02.07.2024 (trial order); confirmation dated 21.02.2025
Complainant's case: loan of Rs.4,00,000/- borrowed by the accused in February 2019, repayable in 2-3 months with interest at 1% per month.
Accused issued a cheque dated 28.12.2020 for Rs.4,00,000/-, which on presentment was returned with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'.

View full history

Bench / Coram

H.P.SANDESH

Parties & counsel