Revision against conviction under Section 138 NI Act for a dishonoured cheque issued to return earnest money under an unperformed sale agreement. Both courts below concurrently convicted the accused. The High Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the revision along with interlocutory applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010383412026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.938 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHAMMAD IRFAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. ACHUTHA ACHARYA, S/O LATE N. LINGAPPA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 1-54/25, FLAT NO.F5, SKANDA, MANGALASHRUTHI APARTMENT, MULIHITHLU ROAD,
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010383412026
MANGALADEVI, MANGALURU-575001.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K., IN CRL.A.NO.3/2024, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC V COURT, MANGALURU IN C.C.NO.1406/2021 WHCIH IS AT ANNEXURE A AND B, AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND AWARD COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for suspension of sentence and I.A.No.2/2026 for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also on perusal of the material available on record, the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that, the accused had entered into an agreement of sale dated 15.06.2017 with the complainant and agreed to sell the property situated at Sy.No.85/2014 measuring 4 cents of
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010383412026
Derebail Village of Mangaluru. Under the agreement of sale dated 15.06.2017, the accused had received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards part sale consideration by way of cheque bearing No.740507 drawn on Canara Bank. Subsequently, the accused failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and thereby agreed to return the earnest money and accordingly, the accused had issued two cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- each to the complainant and collected the original agreement of sale dated 15.06.2017 from the complainant. The complainant had presented one such cheque issued by the accused for Rs.5,00,000/- and has encased the same. The complainant thereafter presented the other cheque and the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, legal notice was issued and the same was served and the accused did not comply with the demand and also not given any reply and hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010383412026
3. The complainant in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7(a). The accused though appeared through counsel and cross-examined P.W.1, but not led any defence evidence. The suggestion made to P.W.1 is that the accused had availed only an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and repaid the same, but the accused denied the very transaction of sale agreement. It is the very specific case of the complainant that at the time of issuance of these two cheques, the accused had collected the original sale agreement. When the same was disputed, the complainant produced the document of Ex.P.7 for having made the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court and no defence evidence. Apart from that, when two cheques were issued, one cheque was encashed for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. In respect of the present subject matter of the cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. When such being the case, the Trial Court considering the material on reocrd, convicted and sentenced the accused.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010383412026
4. The Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.3/2024, re-assessed the evidence and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence available on record. The specific evidence of P.W.1 was extracted in paragraph No.20 and so also taken note of the suggestion made to P.W.1, which clearly indicates that the accused took up a stand that the accused had given the cheque in question as a security and not for legally enforceable debt. The same is discussed in paragraph No.21 and confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that, while filing the complaint there was an inordinate delay. However, he admits that the delay was condoned in view of the Covid-19. The condonation of delay was not challenged and only on merits, filed the revision petition before this Court. The very contention of the revision petitioner is that he had availed only an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was repaid. It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused had entered into an agreement of sale and received an amount of
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010383412026
Rs.10,00,000/- and sale did not come through and hence, the accused repaid the amount by way of two cheques and one cheque was honoured and another cheque was not honoured. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was received under the sale agreement and at the time of issuance of these two cheques, the accused had collected the original sale agreement. Both the Courts taken note of the same and the judgment not suffers from its legality and correctness. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition.
6. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is
dismissed. Consequently, I.A.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 are also dismissed.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the NI Act by the Trial Court and Appellate Court suffered from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nithyananda Shetty
Prasad Acharya (represented by GPA holder Achutha Acharya)
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
