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

NC: 2025:KHC:40014

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

NC: 2025:KHC:40014

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.

NC: 2025:KHC:40014

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.

NC: 2025:KHC:40014

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

NC: 2025:KHC:40014

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

NC: 2025:KHC:40014

HC-KAR