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.

H S Jayakumar Vs M R Chandru — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
H S Jayakumar Vs M R ChandruH S Jayakumar v. M R Chandru

Dismissed¶36

H S Jayakumar v. M R Chandru

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026CRL.RP/858/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), CRL.RP No.858 of 2026, decided 05.06.2026 by Justice H.P. Sandesh — revision against Section 138 NI Act conviction dismissed. Keywords: limited scope of revision under S.397/401 Cr.P.C.; categorical admission in cross-examination of D.W.1 re Ex.P1 signature, handwriting and dishonour ('funds insufficient'); cheque amount Rs.1,00,000/-; alleged loan Rs.2,50,000/- (August 2016); post-dated cheque dated 08.03.2017; legal notice dated 12.04.2017 returned 'addressee left'; CC.No.1107/2017 (II Addl. CJJMFC Nanjangud); Crl.A.No.245/2024 (V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru); admissions take away accused's case; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Given the clear admissions with regard to issuance of the cheque, the amount mentioned in the cheque, the handwriting being the petitioner's, and the cheque having bounced, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise; the scope of revision is very limited.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision petition against the conviction/order of sentence under Section 138 NI Act (and the First Appellate Court's judgment) can be entertained, given the limited scope of revision. +1 more

Court's answer

Given the clear admissions with regard to issuance of the cheque, the amount mentioned in the cheque, the handwriting being the petitioner's, and the cheque having bounced, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise; the scope of revision is very limited.

Ratio / Principle

The very admission (of D.W.1 as to the cheque's issuance, amount, handwriting and dishonour, noted by the Trial Court and extracted by the First Appellate Court) takes away the case of the revision petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C. (parallel provisions S.438 r/w S.442 BNSS, as cited) by the accused seeking to set aside his conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2024 in CC.No.1107/2017 (II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud) for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the judgment dated 10.02.2026 in Crl.A.No.245/2024 of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru. Dismissed: in cross-examination, D.W.1 categorically admitted his signature and handwriting in Ex.P1, that the cheque belonged to his account with the amount mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/-, and its dishonour ('funds insufficient'); these admissions were noted by the Trial Court (para 27) and extracted by the First Appellate Court (para 12). Scope of revision being very limited, the clear admissions took away the case of the revision petitioner. (H.P. Sandesh, J.)

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26868 CRL.RP No. 858 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.858 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

H.S. JAYAKUMAR SON OF LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT VALAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK-571 301.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

WORKING ADDRESS: H.S.JAYAKUMAR PROPRIETOR: VASIJA AND CO. NEW NO.4, 4^TH CROSS MAJID ROAD, NAZARBAD MYSURU-57.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B.SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M.R. CHANDRU S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE BILIGERE HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK-571 301.

…RESPONDENT

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26868 CRL.RP No. 858 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED IN CC.NO.1107/2017 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT NANJANGUD AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.02.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.245/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU, BY ALLOWING THIS RP AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND AWARDING COSTS TO THE ACCUSED.

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 matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the complainant and the accused are acquainted for a long time and out of the said acquaintance, the accused in the month of August, 2016 has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- for his business needs and urgent necessities, after receiving the said amount, the accused had promised the complainant that he will repay the amount within one year and for the security of the said amount, the accused has issued a post dated Cheque dated 08.03.2017 and told the complainant to present the Cheque.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26868 CRL.RP No. 858 of 2026

HC-KAR

When the said Cheque was presented, it was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to accused on 12.04.2017 and the notice returned with endorsement ‘addressee left’. As such, the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, particularly in the cross-examination of D.W.1, he categorically admitted the signature in Ex.P1 and also even the handwriting available in Ex.P1. He also admits that cheque belongs to his account and the amount is mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/- and that when the cheque was presented, the same was dishonored and the endorsement was issued. The same is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.27 of the judgment, wherein the said admission is given.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court and First Appellate Court also taking note of evidence available on record, particularly admissions, extracted the same in paragraph No.12. When such being and clear admission is

NC: 2026:KHC:26868 CRL.RP No. 858 of 2026

4 -

HC-KAR

given with regard to issuance of Cheque, amount mentioned in the cheque as well as the same is in his handwriting and the cheque was also bounced, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise and the scope of revision is very limited. Hence, the very admission takes away the case of the revision petitioner.

Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the criminal revision petition against the conviction/order of sentence under Section 138 NI Act (and the First Appellate Court's judgment) can be entertained, given the limited scope of revision.¶35
The court held
Given the clear admissions with regard to issuance of the cheque, the amount mentioned in the cheque, the handwriting being the petitioner's, and the cheque having bounced, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise; the scope of revision is very limited.ratio¶35
2.
Whether D.W.1's categorical admissions regarding issuance of the cheque, signature and handwriting in Ex.P1, the cheque amount and its dishonour take away the revision petitioner's case.¶30
The court held
The very admission (of D.W.1 as to the cheque's issuance, amount, handwriting and dishonour, noted by the Trial Court and extracted by the First Appellate Court) takes away the case of the revision petitioner.ratio¶35

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 4 enactments

AI extract

Cr.P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure)397 read with 401¶21
BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)438 read with 442¶21
Negotiable Instruments Act138¶21
N.I. Act (Negotiable Instruments Act)138¶29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 10.02.2026 in Crl.A.No.245/2024 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (First Appellate Court), sought to be set aside along with the trial court judgment and order of sentence dated 12.06.2024 in CC.No.1107/2017.¶21
V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Mysuru · 2026-02-10
Prior proceeding
Trial court: judgement and order of sentence dated 12.06.2024 passed in CC.No.1107/2017 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; sought to be set aside by this revision petition.¶21
Prior proceeding
Complainant's case: accused borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- in August 2016 and issued a post-dated cheque dated 08.03.2017 as security for repayment within one year.¶26
Prior proceeding
Cheque presented and returned with endorsement 'funds insufficient'; complainant issued legal notice on 12.04.2017, which returned with endorsement 'addressee left'; offence under Section 138 N.I. Act alleged.¶29
Prior proceeding
In cross-examination, D.W.1 categorically admitted signature and handwriting in Ex.P1, that the cheque belonged to his account, the amount mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/-, and dishonour; Trial Court took note of these admissions in paragraph No.27 of its judgment.¶30
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the trial court judgment, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court.¶31
Prior proceeding
The First Appellate Court took note of the evidence, particularly the admissions, and extracted the same in paragraph No.12 of its judgment.¶31

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
H.S. Jayakumar¶10
B.Sharath Kumar
respondent
M.R. Chandru¶16

Coram

AI extract

H.P. Sandeshauthor¶23

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 5 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 2 Jun 2026
Case no.: CRL.RP/858/2026
CNR: KAHC010354542026
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

Mohammed Khalid Vs the State by the Station House Officer
4 Jun 2026
Arvind Singhal Vs State of Karnataka
4 Jun 2026
Sri T S Basavaraju Vs Smt H G Savitha
4 Jun 2026
Sri Ganesha D Vs Sri Ramachandra a Shet
5 Jun 2026
Mr Keshav Das Vs Mr Kumbala Padhbhanabha
5 Jun 2026
Mr. Kunhi Moosa., Vs Mr. Syed Asad Ahmed
5 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

H S Jayakumar v. M R Chandru, CRL.RP/858/2026 (KA), decided on 5 June 2026.

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

Statutes4

Cr.P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure)397 read with 401
BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)438 read with 442
Negotiable Instruments Act138
N.I. Act (Negotiable Instruments Act)138

View all statutes

Procedural history7

Judgment and order dated 10.02.2026 in Crl.A.No.245/2024 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (First Appellate Court), sought to be set aside along with the trial court judgment and order of sentence dated 12.06.2024 in CC.No.1107/2017.V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Mysuru · 2026-02-10
Trial court: judgement and order of sentence dated 12.06.2024 passed in CC.No.1107/2017 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; sought to be set aside by this revision petition.
Complainant's case: accused borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- in August 2016 and issued a post-dated cheque dated 08.03.2017 as security for repayment within one year.

View full history

Bench / Coram

H.P. Sandesh

Parties & counsel