Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandarashekar vs Umashankar K S on 11 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31056
CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 766 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI CHANDARASHEKAR,
S/O YALAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
SHETTIGOWDANADODDI,
BIDADI HOBLI - 562109.
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDESH H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UMASHANKAR K S,
S/O. LATE. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
Digitally R/AT NO. 40, RENUKA NILAYA,
signed by C KENCHANKUPPE, BIDADI HOBLI - 562109,
HONNUR RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
SAB ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANTOSH KUMAR M B, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
COURT OF TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2018 PASSED BY
THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., RAMANAGARA IN
KARNATAKA
C.C.NO.583/2011 AND JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2018 PASSED
BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.NO.09/2018.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31056
CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent
finding in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act').
2. A cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- said to have been
issued by the petitioner to the respondent is dishonoured
and the respondent has lodged a complaint after issuing
notice to the petitioner.
3. Petitioner/accused raised a contention that the
loan transaction alleged by the complainant is not
established.
4. The Trial Court did not accept the plea and
convicted the accused. The Appellate Court also dismissed
the appeal, thereby confirming the sentence of simple
imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,20,000/- and
further in default the petitioner has to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of fine amount
NC: 2025:KHC:31056
HC-KAR
of Rs.3,20,000/-, a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- is ordered to be
paid as compensation to the complainant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the alleged loan transaction is not
established and the complainant was a student at the time of
alleged loan transaction in the year 2005-06 and even the
evidence given on behalf of the complainant relating to the
payment of loan amount in installment to the accused is not
established. In addition, learned counsel would also urge
that notice is not issued through registered post and the
same is not served before filing the complaint as such the
complaint is not tenable.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/
complainant would submit that the transaction is duly
established. There is a presumption in favour of the
complainant under Section 138 of NI Act and said
presumption relating to legally enforceable debt in favour of
the complainant is not rebutted by the petitioner/accused by
leading rebuttable evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC:31056
HC-KAR
7. It is also his further submission that the notice is
sent through registered post and acknowledgement card was
not returned to the complainant and for this reason, he has
produced the acknowledgement issued by the postal
department for having delivered the notice to the petitioner /
accused.
8. Rebutting the contention relating to the advance
of the loan amount on the premise that the complainant was
still a student in the year 2005-06, it is urged that no
evidence is led on behalf of the petitioner / accused. He
would also point out that the petitioner / accused has not
stepped into the witness box to substantiate his contention.
9. This Court has considered the contentions raised
at the bar and perused the records.
10. The defence of the petitioner that the cheque
issued to someone else is misused and that the complainant
has filed a false complaint is not established as no evidence
is led to accept the contention that the cheque is issued to
someone else and the same is handed over to the
NC: 2025:KHC:31056
HC-KAR
complainant and thereafter the complainant has misused the
same.
11. It is also noticed that the petitioner has not led
any rebuttal evidence. He has not stepped into the witness
box to substantiate his contention. Evidence in the cross-
examination of the witness on behalf of the complainant and
the evidence in the cross-examination of the complainant is
not good enough to rebut the presumption under Section
138 of NI Act.
12. As far as the contention that the notice is issued
through registered post and same is not served to the
petitioner is concerned, Ex.P6 and P7 are the answers to the
said contention, wherein the postal acknowledgements
issued by the postal department indicate that notice is
delivered to the petitioner.
13. It is also noticed that there is no dispute relating
to the address of the petitioner shown in the complaint.
Under these circumstances, this Court has to draw
presumption that notice is duly served on the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:31056
HC-KAR
14. After considering the reasons assigned by the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court, this Court finds that no
case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court which concurrently held that the
transaction is established and legally enforceable debt in
favour of the complainant/respondent is also established.
15. However, it is to be noticed that the learned
counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that the
sentence imposed is disproportionate, in the sense the Trial
Court has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment
for a period of one year and also imposed a penalty of
sentence of one month in case amount of compensation of
Rs.3,20,000/- is not paid.
16. Since the cheque amount is Rs.3,00,000/- and
considering the fact that 50% of the fine amount is already
deposited before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view
that the sentence of one year imposed by the Trial Court has
to be set-aside and modified.
NC: 2025:KHC:31056
HC-KAR
17. The petitioner shall deposit balance fine amount
within 45 days from today. In case amount is not deposited,
the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 3 months. The amount in deposit and the amount to be
deposited shall be released in favour of the complainant.
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated 20.06.2018 in Criminal
Appeal No.9/2018 on the file of III Additional
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and the
judgment dated 20.02.2018 in
C.C.No.583/2011 on the file of JMFC,
Ramanagara are modified as indicated above.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
