Dismissed¶38

Mr. Jayakumar B v. Mr. Basavaraju U H

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026CRL.RP/850/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J., 08-06-2026) dismissed CRL.RP No.850 of 2026 filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C challenging conviction under S.138 NI Act (cheque dated 05.06.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dishonoured for 'funds insufficient'; no reply to legal notice dated 05.07.2018). Held: no cross-examination of P.W.1, no defence evidence, no rebuttal evidence; scope of revision very limited; no ground to entertain revision. Trial conviction in CC No.2515/2021 dated 17.03.2025 and appellate confirmation in Crl.A No.50/2025 dated 30.04.2026 stand.

What did the court decide?

With no cross-examination of P.W.1 (complainant) and no defence evidence led, there is no rebuttal evidence, and the revision cannot be entertained as the scope of revision is very limited. ¶38

Mr. Jayakumar B Vs Mr. Basavaraju U H — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27275 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 850 OF 2026

¶8

(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. JAYAKUMAR B

¶11

S/O. LATE N M BOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. MADHUVANA, 12TH CROSS, 4TH HOUSE,NEAR KASHIPURA RAILWAYGATE,SHIVAMOGGA 577 201.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. K V SATEESHCHANDRA,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

MR. BASAVARAJU U H, S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT. A BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, SHARAVATHI NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA 577 201.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

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 JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.04.2026 IN CRL.A NO.50/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 IN CC NO.2515/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:27275 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES P /U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This matter is listed for admission.

¶27

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision

¶28

petitioner.

¶29

3. The factual matrix of the case are that the revision petitioner being the Class 1 PWD Contractor undertaking constructions of Building/Commercial Complex/Layout etc., carrying the business in the name and style of M/s. Maruthi Builders and Developers. The revision petitioner approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards purchase of construction materials to his work order and assured to pay the same within 15 days. But even after lapse of said 15 days, the revision petitioner had failed to repay the loan amount and the complainant demanded to repay the loan amount. Thereafter the

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27275 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

accused has issued a Cheque dated 05.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only). The complainant presented the Cheque for encashment but subsequently, it returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. On 05.07.2018, the complainant issued a legal notice calling upon the revision petitioner to pay the Cheque amount within 15 days and thereby the revision petitioner has committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short).

¶33

4. Issuance of Cheque and so also the signature is not disputes and there is no reply for the demand notice issued to the revision petitioner and he has not led any defence evidence and also failed to cross examine the complainant even though sufficient opportunity is given and the said aspect is observed in paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the trial Court.

¶34

5. Further, the appellate Court also having

¶35

considered the material on record in paragraph No.16 of

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27275 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

its judgment, made an observation that even in the appeal also, the revision petitioner has not pursued the matter. When there is no cross examination of P.W.1 i.e, the complainant and also not led any defence evidence, there is no any rebuttal evidence and question of entertaining this revision in the above circumstances does not arise as the scope of revision is very limited. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and accordingly, stands dismissed .

¶39

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶40

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Mr. Jayakumar B v. Mr. Basavaraju U H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jayakumar B v. Mr. Basavaraju U H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Susheelamma Vs Sri D S Damarugendra

Paramesha K S Vs Arunkumar K K@ Arun

Yenjappa S/O Siddappa Vs Smt.Kenchamma W/O Muddappa

Mr a Alfred Vs State of Karnataka

Titan Engineers Vs M/S.Trident Industries

M/S Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Lakki Paint O Chem