Karnataka High Court
Shri. Venkataraman S/O Nagendra Hegde vs Shri.Dattatraya Damodhar Shet on 21 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100153 OF 2018
(397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS)
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100054 OF 2019
IN CRL.RP. NO.100153/2018
BETWEEN
SHRI VENKATARAMAN S/O. NAGENDRA HEGDE,
A/A MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. BIDRALLI, POST: UMACHAGI,
TALUK: YELLAPUR-581359.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DATTATRAYA T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHRI DATTATRAYA DAMODHAR SHET,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
Location: High Court
of Karnataka, R/O. MARATIKOPPA, SIRSI-843333.
Dharwad Bench
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V. G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2018 PASSED IN
CRL.A.5042/2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST
THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL J.M.F.C., SIRSI IN
C.C.NO.576/2009 BY ORDER DATED 21.10.2016 AND THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION
138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.
IN CRL.RP. NO.100054/2019
BETWEEN
DATTATRAY DAMODHAR SHET,
A/A: 62 YEARS, "GANESH NILAYA",
OPP: ARASAPPAKATTE,
DUNSHINAGAR, SIRSI (U.K.),
PIN CODE: 581402.
..PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND
VENKATRAMAN NAGENDRA HEGDE,
S/O. NAGENDRA SHIVARAM HEGDE,
A/A: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
AT: BIDRALLI, PO: UMMACHAGI,
YALLAPUR, PIN CODE: 581359.
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DATTATRAYA T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO AWARD A
COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO BE GIVEN TO THE
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT BE INCREASED TO THE EXTENT OF
RS.5,00,000/- (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS ONLY) UNDER SECTION
357 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND SENTENCE OF
PUNISHMENT BE INCREASED FOR THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
14.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
Criminal Revision petition 100153/2018 is filed by
the accused challenging the judgment and order dated
21.10.2016 passed in C.C. No.576/2009 by the
I Additional Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Sirsi (for
short, 'trial Court') and Criminal Appeal No.5042/2016
dated 12.07.2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi (for short, 'the
Appellate Court')
2. Criminal Revision petition 100054/2019 is filed
by the complainant challenging the judgment and order
dated 21.10.2016 passed in C.C. No.576/2009 by the I
Additional Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Sirsi and
Crl.A.No.5045/2016 dated 12.07.2018 by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi,
seeking to enhance the penalty to Rs.5,00,000/- and pay
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
the same as a compensation and further to sentence the
accused to imprisonment for a period of two years.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred as per the ranking before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of these petitions
are that, the complainant and the accused were friends
and the accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/-
from the complainant on 31.01.1996. The accused
executed a bond for borrowing the amount and later he
sends letter dated 26.01.1997, 15.05.1997 and
25.02.1998. It is averred that the accused issued a cheque
for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for part payment and also
executed promissory note on 14.05.2005 admitting the
transaction.
5. It is further averred that the accused issued two
cheques in favour of the complainant for a sum of
Rs.1,25,000/- each and on presenting the said cheque by
the complainant through his banker, the same was
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
returned on 13.08.2008 with an endorsement 'Account
closed'. It is also averred that the complainant
immediately issued notices to the accused to his
addresses. He filed a private complaint under Section 200
of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offences punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short, 138 of N.I. Act).
6. The accused appeared before the trial Court, his
plea was recorded. The complainant in order to prove his
case, examined himself as PW1 and got marked
documents Exs.P1 to P18(a). The accused examined
himself as DW1 and got examined other two witnesses as
DW2 and DW3 and also got marked documents Exs.D1 to
D5.
7. The trial Court after considering the
submissions, evaluated the oral and documentary
evidence and passed the impugned judgment convicting
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
of N.I. Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.3,25,000/- and in default ordered to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months. It was further
directed that a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant as a compensation. Being aggrieved, the
complainant as well as accused preferred Criminal Appeal
Nos.5042/2016 and 5045/2016 respectively. The District
and Sessions Court dismissed both the appeals. Being
aggrieved, these revision petitions are filed.
8. Sri. Dattatraya Timmanna Hebbar, learned
counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner submits that
the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed a
grave error in appreciating the evidence on record. It is
submitted that the notice as required under law was not
served on the accused. It is further submitted that the
complainant is not capable of advancing a hand loan of
Rs.2,50,000/- and the accused is not an income tax
assessee and the complainant stole the blank signed
cheques from the house of the accused which has been
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
elicited in the cross examination of the complainant. It is
also submitted that the documents at Exs.P1 to P6 are
created documents as is evident from the evidence of
DW2. However, the trial Court as well as the appellate
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper
perspective. It is contended that the accused's account
was closed and the cheques were not returned for
insufficiency of the funds and such being the case, there
cannot be any conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
These aspects have not been properly analyzed by the trial
Court as well as appellate Court, resulting in passing of the
impugned judgments of conviction, which are perverse
and contrary to law, and calls for interference in these
petitions.
9. Per contra, Sri. V.G. Bhat, learned counsel
appearing for complainant/respondent supports the
impugned judgment of the trial Court insofar as conviction
of the accused is concerned and submits that the appellate
Court ought to have allowed the appeal filed by the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
complainant by sentencing the accused to pay fine of
Rs.5,00,000/- and also imprisonment of two years as
provided under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is submitted
that the transaction is of the year 1996 and till date the
complainant is unable to realize the amount. Hence, it is a
fit case to enhance the fine amount to Rs.5,00,000/- and
also order the compensation to the complainant/victim. He
seeks to allow the petition by dismissing the petition filed
by the accused.
10. I have heard the arguments made by the
learned counsel for the accused, learned counsel for the
complainant and on meticulous perusal of the material on
record including the trial Court record, following points
would arise for consideration:
i. The complainant and the accused are friends,
the accused borrowed a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant as a
hand loan on 31.01.1996. The accused
executed bond dated 28.08.1996 which is
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
marked as Ex.P1. The letters communicated
by the accused to the complainant dated
26.01.1997, 15.05.1997 and 25.02.1998,
marked as Ex.P3 to P5 indicates the loan
transaction between the accused and
complainant. The accused executed
promissory note on 14.05.2005 which is
marked as Ex.P6, which evidences that the
accused has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from
the complainant. The accused issued two
cheques bearing Nos.415182 and 415183 for
Rs.1,25,000/- each of Varada Grameena
Bank, Sirsi Branch. The said cheques are of
the accused pertaining to his Saving Bank
Account No.3741. The complainant presented
the cheques through his banker and the
same were returned on 13.08.2008 with
endorsement that the "Account Closed". The
complainant as per the requirement of law,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
got issued legal notices to the addresses of
the accused. The notice sent to the earlier
addresses of the accused returned as "House
vacated" and one notice was returned as
'Refused'. Another notice sent was served on
one Rohini, thereafter, the complainant filed
a private complaint under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. The evidence of complainant narrates
the issuance of cheques, the correspondence
between the complainant and the accused,
the signing of a promissory note by the
accused, the issuance of two cheques, bank
endorsements and the issuance and service
of a legal notice. The evidence of PW1 and
the Exs.P1 to P18(a) indicate that there was
a legal transaction between the complainant
and the accused and accused had borrowed a
sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and to discharge the
loan, the accused has issued two cheques
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
referred supra which came to be
dishonoured.
ii. The primary contention of the accused in the
aforesaid proceeding is that two signed
cheques of the accused were stolen by the
complainant. The said defence of the accused
is rightly rejected by the trial Court as the
same is not supported with any evidence to
substantiate the said contention. The
cheques in question were dated on
18.05.2008 and as soon as the accused came
to know about the stealing of cheque or
immediately when the complainant initiated
the proceedings against the accused for
dishonour of cheque, the accused ought to
have taken steps by filing complaint of theft.
iii. The second contention of the accused is that
the legal notice is not served. The trial Court
recorded a clear finding that the notices were
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
sent to different addresses of the accused
and one notice returned to the sender as
"House vacated". The postal cover returned
with the said endorsement is marked as
Ex.P11(a). The address on the said cover is
of the accused and his village is written as
"Bidralli village of Yellapur Taluk". The notice
sent to the accused was served as is evident
from Ex.P12. The postal acknowledgement
indicates that one Rohini has received the
notice. The other notices sent to the
addresses of the accused returned with a
shara that the "addressee has left the
village". The address shown in the cause title
of the complaint of the accused is Bidralli
village, Umachagi Post, Yellapur Taluk. The
deposition of accused-DW1 also indicates
that he is a resident of Bidralli village,
Umachagi Post, Yellapur Taluk. Considering
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
these aspects, the trial Court has clearly
recorded the finding that the notice issued to
the accused is duly served.
iv. The third contention of the accused is that
the Bank account of the accused was closed
even before issuance of the cheque. Hence,
there cannot be any offence under the
provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act. The
material on record indicates that the Account
was closed by the Bank as there were no
transaction in the said account. Knowing fully
well, that the account was closed, the
accused has proceeded to issue two cheques
to the complainant which came to be
returned with endorsement that the
accused's "Account is closed". Further the
complainant has categorically stated in his
evidence that the accused has given
requisition for stopping the payment to the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
Banker. When things stood thus, the accused
cannot contend that he has not committed
an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
v. The other contention of the accused is that
the complainant got executed Exs.P1, P2 -
loan agreements and Ex.P6-Promisory note,
at a later point, by ante-dating. To support
the said contention, he got examined DW2
who claims to be a Typist at Sirsi Bar
Association. The oral testimony of DW2 is not
trustworthy as there were later
communications between complainant and
accused as per Exs.P3 to 5, which indicate
that there was a financial transaction
between the accused and complainant. The
accused has not stated anything with regard
to Exs.P3 to 5. In the absence of any
explanation to the correspondence between
the complainant and accused and later
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
issuance of two cheques by the accused and
his intimation to the Bank to not honour
those cheques clearly indicates that there
was a legal transaction between the
complainant and the accused. The accused to
discharge the said debt had issued two
cheques which came to be dishonoured and
has committed the offence under Section 138
of N.I. Act.
vi. The contention of the accused that the
payment of cash by the complainant to the
accused is in violation of provisions of the
Income Tax Act has no merit. The accused
has not raised the said defence before the
trial Court nor before the Appellate Court and
if there is any contravention of the Income
Tax Act, the said authority would initiate
action and such contention would not
exonerate the accused from his liability.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
11. The trial Court on judicious appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a
finding that the accused has failed to rebut the statutory
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by
producing legally acceptable evidence. The complainant
was able to prove that the accused has issued two
cheques to discharge a legally enforceable debt and the
trial Court proceeded to convict the accused for offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The said finding of the
trial Court is strictly in consonance with law and evidence
on record and the said finding is neither perverse nor
contrary to the law calling for interference. The Appellate
Court has relooked the entire evidence and affirmed the
finding of fact recorded by the trial Court with regard to
the commission of offence by the accused. I do not find
any perversity or error in the finding recorded by the trial
Court and the Appellate Court convicting the accused for
offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
12. The complainant has filed a criminal revision
petition seeking for enhancement of the fine amount and
the sentence. The trial Court sentenced the accused to pay
a fine of Rs.3,25,000/- and in default ordered to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months and
further directed a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- to be paid to the
complainant as compensation. The transaction between
the complainant and accused is of the year 1996 which is
more than 28 years and from the date of issuance of
cheque, till date, the complainant has not received any
amount which is more than 17 years. Considering the rate
of interest paid by the nationalized Banks on the term
deposits which is 6% p.a., the interest of justice would be
met if the sentence is enhanced by imposing total fine of
Rs.5,00,000/-.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to
pass the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10640
CRL.RP No. 100153 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 100054 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition No.100153/2018
is rejected.
ii. Criminal revision petition No.100054/2019
is partly allowed.
iii. The impugned judgments and order
convicting the accused is upheld. The
accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.5,00,000/-, in default the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months. Further, acting under
Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., a sum of
Rs.4,90,000/- is ordered to be paid to the
complainant as compensation and
Rs.10,000/- as a fine to the State.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RKM /CT-AN
