Dismissed¶¶50

Sri Joel Alexander v. Sri Manoj

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2026CRL.RP/693/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, CRL.RP No.693/2025 (H.P. Sandesh, J., 06.07.2026): revision against S.138 NI Act conviction dismissed; concurrent findings of Trial Court (C.C.No.1391/2020, 17.09.2022) and Appellate Court (Crl.A.No.1284/2022, 04.04.2025) upheld; accused admitted cheque issuance (Ex.P1-P4), no rebuttal evidence; loan Rs.10,00,000/-, cheque liability Rs.15,00,000/-, M/s ASCC group villa project; Rangappa v. Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 noted by Appellate Court.

What did the court decide?

The accused admitted the issuance of the subject-matter cheques at Ex.P1 to P4 but no defence of rebuttal was adduced before the Trial Court; the cheque was returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and the notice was served. ¶¶42

Sri Joel Alexander Vs Sri Manoj — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the convictions of the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act by the Trial Court (judgment dated 17.09.2022 in C.C.No.1391/2020) and the Appellate Court (judgment dated 04.04.2025 in Crl.A.No.1284/2022) are illegal or one-sided - allegedly without opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence - warranting interference of this Court in revision.

¶¶36

Court's answer

¶¶42

Ratio / Principle

In the cross-examination of PW1 nothing was elicited and nothing was substantiated in the defence evidence; the suggestions that the transaction was an investment in the M/s ASCC group villa project were denied by PW1.

¶¶49

Key takeaways

There is no ground to entertain the revision petition, for the reason that the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court do not suffer from illegality or incorrectness.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No.693/2025) under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C against concurrent convictions under S.138 NI Act - Trial Court judgment dated 17.09.2022 in C.C.No.1391/2020 confirmed by the LVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57) on 04.04.2025 in Crl.A.No.1284/2022. Complainant alleged that he lent Rs.10,00,000/- in June 2018 to the accused, GPA holder of M/s ASCC group, for the Elysium Villa project; agreement dated 11.06.2018; repayment of Rs.15,00,000/- undertaken by 15.12.2018; registered agreement of sale executed as collateral security; cheques dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient'; legal notice served and unanswered. Accused admitted issuance of cheques Ex.P1 to P4 but adduced no rebuttal; cross-examination of PW1 elicited nothing; the Appellate Court had taken note of Rangappa v. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898. High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh, J.) found no illegality or incorrectness in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision petition (order dated 06.07.2026).

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33654 CRL.RP No. 693 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.693 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI JOEL ALEXANDER S/O SIMON DEVADASS AGED 51 YEARS NO.212, COLOSSEO VENTURES BEHIND I.O.C. BANK MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU -37

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESHA N, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SRI MANOJ Digitally signed S/O JAYALAKSHMI by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Location: HIGH BAHUMUKI MEDIA AND EVENTS COURT OF KARNATAKA NO.94/B, 7^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN OPP GOVT SCHOOL NEAR KALIKAMBA TEMPLE KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BENGALURU-560060

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. NATARAJU T, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:33654 CRL.RP No. 693 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1284/2022 ON THE FILE OF LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-57) AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 17.09.2022 passed in C.C.No.1391/2020 and also against the judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.1284/2022.

¶23

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶24

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶25

The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused is known to him and accused has approached him for financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- for the project Elysium Villa which is forming by M/s ASCC group represented by the accused on the capacity of GPA holder in the first week of June, 2018. Considering the request of the accused, the complainant lent an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused. In this regard, they have entered into an agreement dated 11.06.2018. It is further contended that the accused has

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33654 CRL.RP No. 693 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

undertaken to repay the said amount with an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within 15.12.2018. In additional to that, accused has also executed a registered agreement of sale dated 11.06.2018 in favour of the complainant as collateral security to the said amount. The accused has issued a Cheque for Rs.15,00,000/-. When accused did not return the amount as agreed, the complainant approached him and accused issued cheques towards his liability. When the said cheques were presented, the same were returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant demanded for repayment of the amount issuing a legal notice and the said notice was served on the accused but did not reply to the said notice. Hence, filed the complaint and cognizance was taken. Accused was secured and he did not plead guilt.

¶29

In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and also examined one more witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P19. On the other hand, the accused has not led defence evidence and not produced any documents to prove his case. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the complainant has

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:33654 CRL.RP No. 693 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

proved the guilt of the accused that the accused is liable to pay the amount covered under the cheques. There is no substance in the probable defence of the accused, whereas the complainant has discharged his burden and proved the guilt of the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record comes to the conclusion that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper and there is no irregularity committed by the Trial Court in convicting the accused and the order of the Trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶36

The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the judgment of the Trial Court is illegal and one sided since not at all given opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. The Appellate Court also after hearing the arguments

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:33654 CRL.RP No. 693 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

of the respondent, hurriedly passed the judgment without giving opportunity to the petitioner and blindly confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, both the Courts committed an error in convicting the petitioner/accused. Hence, interference of this Court is required.

¶41

The counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not committed an error in considering the material available on record and rightly convicted the petitioner. Hence, the judgment of both the Courts do not suffers from any illegality or correctness. Hence, interference of this Court does not require.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the Trial court taken note of the fact that when the notice was issued, the same was served, but reply was not given. The accused has admitted the issuance of subject matter of cheques at Ex.P1 to P4 but no defence of rebuttal is adduced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court and also the Appellate Court considered the material available on record in a proper perspective. The fact that cheque was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Notice also

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33654 CRL.RP No. 693 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

served. The Trial Court also taken note of judgments of the Apex Court while convicting the petitioner. The Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of evidence taken note of the principle laid down in judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in the case of RANGAPPA VS MOHAN. The specific case of the complainant that he has paid the Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused who has invested the said amount in a villa project which is formed by M/s ASCC group represented by the accused on the capacity of GPA holder. Accused also suggested to PW1 during his cross-examination at paragraph 3 that there was a talk during June 2018 regarding investment in M/s ASCC group. It also suggested that from 11.06.2018 to 16.06.2018, the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further suggested at paragraph 10 that it was agreed that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has to be returned with profit of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further suggested that for the said sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, villa has to be given to the complainant, the same is denied by PW1. Though it is suggested that the value of the villa was Rs.46,00,000/- and if the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- is not paid, complainant has to get the villa registered in his name, PW1 also denied the same. Thus, in the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:33654 CRL.RP No. 693 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

cross examination of PW1, nothing is elicited and nothing is substantiated in the defence evidence. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition for the reason that the judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court do not suffers from its legality and correctness.

¶50

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶52

Sri Joel Alexander v. Sri Manoj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Joel Alexander v. Sri Manoj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma W/O Karisiddappa Vs Smt Nagarathnamma

Dr Vandana S Vs Akash Shankar

Ramamurthy Vs v Giridhar

Sri Saravanan K Vs Sri C S Ravi

Smt Komala Vs Sri C S Ravi