Karnataka High Court
Sri. M N Manjappa vs Sri C K Yogendra on 10 October, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40014
CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 594 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANJAPPA,
S/O NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/A MARENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SANTHEBACHANAHALLI HOBLI,
K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GOPALA C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI C.K. YOGENDRA,
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/A CHAMIKOPPALU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK,
Digitally signed MANDYA DISTRICT.
by GURURAJ D ...RESPONDENT
Location: High
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W
Court of
Karnataka 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5051/2023 BY
THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING
AT SRIRANGAPATNA), AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 18.10.2023 PASSED IN CC.NO.160/2016 BY THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., K.R.PETE.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40014
CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment and order dated 21.02.2025 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna) confirming judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2023 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, KR Pete, in CC no.160/2016, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri C Gopala, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, respondent herein filed C.C.no.160/2016 against petitioner herein (accused) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short), alleging that during first week of May, 2011, accused borrowed Rs.2 Lakhs as loan from complainant for household expenses assuring to repay same within two months. But, after lapse of said period, when complainant demanded return of amount, accused had issued cheque no.695258 dated 05.07.2011 drawn on Vishweshwaraiah Grameena Bank, KR Pete Branch, which when presented for collection through complainant's banker - Vijaya Bank, Hosaholalu Branch, on 08.07.2011, it was returned dishonoured due to 'funds insufficient'. Intimation to said effect -3- NC: 2025:KHC:40014 CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025 HC-KAR sent by his banker was received on same day. It was stated, accused failed to pay cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice dated 14.07.2011 got issued by complainant nor replied to notice, thereby committing offence as alleged and seeking for taking action against accused for same.
3. On service of summons, accused appeared and pleaded not guilty, which necessitated trial. Trial Court framed following points for consideration and recorded evidence.
"i. Does the complainant proves that the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No.695258 dated 05.07.2011 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Vishveshwaraya Grameena Bank, Krishnarajpet Branch towards his personal household expenses and discharge of debts and the same was dishonoured for reason 'Funds insufficient' and that in spite of issuance of notice to the accused, he has failed to repay the amount due in cheque within the stipulated period?
ii. What order or sentence?"
4. Complainant deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P4, while accused deposed as DW.1 and did not produce any documents.
5. On consideration, trial Court answered point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 by convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Act and sentencing him to pay -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40014 CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025 HC-KAR fine of Rs.2,05,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved thereby, accused preferred appeal in CRL.A.no.5051/2023.
6. Appellate Court framed following points for consideration:
"i. Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
ii. What order?"
7. On consideration, Appellate Court answered point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 by dismissing appeal, confirming judgment and order passed by trial Court. Aggrieved, this revision petition is filed.
8. It was submitted, Courts below failed to appreciate material on record in proper perspective. Therefore, judgment of conviction was unsustainable. It was firstly submitted, accused denied existence of any legally enforceable debt and about issuance of cheque to repay same. It was submitted, statutory notice got issued by complainant was not served on accused, but on some other person. Hence, complaint was liable for dismissal on ground of non-compliance with statutory requirements in Section 138 of Act.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:40014 CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. It was further submitted, accused had rebutted presumption by eliciting admission from complainant that he was unaware of exact date, time and place of lending money to accused. It was submitted, this Court had held failure to remember exact date of making payment as fatal and confirmed order of acquittal in case of Yeshwanth Kumar & Anr. v. Shanth Kumar & Anr. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3594.
10. Likewise, complainant did not even remember denominations of currency notes in which money was paid. His statement that there were 400-500 notes of Rs.500/- denomination, would not match amount of Rs.2 Lakhs allegedly paid. It was further submitted, accused had taken specific contention that complainant did not have financial capacity to lend said sum. Above factors would be sufficient to hold that accused had substantiated his defence and rebutted presumption under Section 141 of Act. And both Courts failed to consider same.
11. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments/orders.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:40014 CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings holding him guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Ravi v. State of T.N., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283 has held:
"9. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the observations made by this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander1, explaining the scope of Section 397 Cr. P.C. It was held that--
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:40014 CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025 HC-KAR charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
10. Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr. P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that subsection 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. The Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge under Section 216 Cr. P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order."
13. Thus, unless a clear case of finding being clearly erroneous or contrary to provisions of law or suffer from perversity, there can be no interference.
14. Insofar as first contention about non-receipt of statutory notice, trial Court observed, complainant got marked office copy of legal notice issued to accused on 14.07.2011 as Ex.P3 and reply by Department of Post confirming delivery of said notice as Ex.P4.
15. Said material would establish service of notice. In case, accused were to dispute same, he ought to have -8- NC: 2025:KHC:40014 CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025 HC-KAR examined any official from concerned Post Office. Further decision in Yeshwanth Kumar's case (supra), would be clearly distinguishable from present, as in said case, complainant had only stated that he had agreed to lend sum of Rs.1 Lakh as hand loan to accused in month of April, 2008 and had failed to state exact date of making such payment. This Court held cumulative effect of these two factors to be fatal to complaint under Section 138 of Act.
16. In instant case, there is clear assertion about having made payment of Rs.2 Lakhs to accused albeit complainant did not remember exact date of payment. Even contention about failure to remember denomination of currency notes in which payment was made, statement of complainant that it was by 400-500 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, cannot be stated to be grossly mismatching the amount paid. Lastly, though accused raised a contention disputing financial capacity of complainant to pay Rs.2 Lakhs, it rather appears to be routine defence. Moreover, it is observed by Courts that complainant was working as LIC Agent, and about which there was no cross-examination. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:40014 CRL.RP No. 594 of 2025 HC-KAR
17. In view of above, it is seen that findings of both Courts are based on material on record after assigning due reasons, which do not suffer from perversity. Consequently, there would be no scope for interference.
Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33