[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Shakuntala vs Mangala Credit Co Operative Society ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2915
CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 107 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MRS. SHAKUNTALA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O MR. DEVENDRA K
R/AT DOOR NO. 1-117/1
DUGGI HOUSE
MEENAKALIYA PSOT
BAIKAMPADY
MANGALURU
D.K DISTRICT - 575 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADV.)
AND:
MANGALA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED
REGISTERED UNDER THE KAR NATAKA
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT
Digitally signed HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
by NANDINI M PALMA CENTRE, NEAR KSRTC BEJAI
S MANGALURU - 575 002.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REP. BY BRANCH MNAGER OF
MANGALA CREDIT CO OPERATIE
SOCIETY LIMITED
SURATHKAL BRANCH
SMT. USHALATHA
W/O MR. BHOJA DEVADIGA
MAJRO
R/AT 'SAI BABA NIASA'
AGARAMELU, SURATHKAL
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 014.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2915
CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024
HC-KAR
(BY SRI P. VITTAL SHETTY, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.03.2023 PASSED
IN CRL.A.NO.89/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT D.K., MANGALURU DISMISSING THE
APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
12.04.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.7138/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
JMFC IV COURT, MANGALURU D.K., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF
NI ACT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND
THEREBY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. The accused is before this Court in this revision
petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with
a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed in C.C.No.7138 of 2019 dated 12.04.2022 by
the Court of JMFC(IV) Court, Mangaluru and the judgment and
order dated 14.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.89 of
2022 by the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K,
Mangaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
NC: 2026:KHC:2915
HC-KAR
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings
against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act')
before the JMFC(IV) Court, Mangaluru in C.C.No.7138 of 2019.
It is the case of the respondent / complainant that petitioner
and her husband Devendra K had availed a loan of
₹.25,00,000/- from the respondent / society in the year 2015
and towards partial repayment of the amount due under the
loan account, the cheque in question bearing No.999071 dated
18.06.2018 for a sum of ₹.10,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank,
Mangalore City Branch was issued in favour of the respondent /
complainant. The said cheque, on presentation for realisation
was dishonoured by drawee bank with a shara "Funds
insufficient". Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice to
the petitioner which was duly served and in spite of service of
notice, the amount covered under the cheque in question was
not paid. Therefore, proceedings was initiated against the
petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act.
NC: 2026:KHC:2915
HC-KAR
4. To substantiate the case of the respondent /
complainant, the Branch Manager of the respondent / society
was examined as PW1 and 13 documents were got marked as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. In support of the defence, no oral evidence
was led nor was any document got marked. The Trial court
after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, convicted
the petitioner by the impugned judgment and order passed in
C.C.No.7138 of 2019 for offence punishable under Section 138
of N.I. Act and sentenced her to pay fine of ₹.11,80,000/- and
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6
months. The said judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed in C.C.No.7138 of 2019 has been confirmed in
Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2022 vide judgment dated
14.03.2023 by the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
D.K, Mangaluru. It is under the circumstances, petitioner is
before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated
the ground urged in the petition submits that, the complainant
has not produced any material to prove the transaction
between the petitioner and the respondent / complainant.
NC: 2026:KHC:2915
HC-KAR
Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect of the
matter. Accordingly, prays to allow this petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence and prays to dismiss the petition.
7. It is the case of the respondent / complainant that
the petitioner along with her husband had availed a loan of
Rs.25 lakhs from the respondent in the year 2015 and towards
repayment of loan dues the cheque in question was issued. It is
not in dispute that the legal notice issued on behalf of the
respondent / complainant to the petitioner after the cheque in
question was dishonored, was duly served and the amount
covered under the check in question was not repaid by the
petitioner in spite of service of the statutory notice on her.
8. The Manager of the respondent / society has been
examined in the present case as PW1 to substantiate the case
of the respondent. In addition to the oral evidence of PW1,
respondent / society has produced 13 documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P13. Ex.P1 is the original of the cheque in question dated
NC: 2026:KHC:2915
HC-KAR
18.06.2018. Signature of the petitioner in the said cheque is
not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the cheque in
question was drawn on the bank account maintained by the
petitioner in Vijay Bank, Mangalore City Branch. Therefore, a
presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under
Section 139 R/w Section 118 of N.I. Act. Unless the petitioner
puts forward a probable defence, the petitioner is liable to be
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act. The petitioner has not put forward any defence before
the Courts below nor she had examined any witness before the
Trial Court.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent /
complainant has not proved the transaction between them and
therefore it cannot be said that the cheque in question was
issued towards a legally recoverable debt. ExP7 is the certified
copy of the order passed by the Joint Registrar Co-operative
Society and perusal of the said document would go to show
that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the
respondent / Society for recovery of the loan borrowed by her
and an award has been passed in the said proceedings holding
NC: 2026:KHC:2915
HC-KAR
that the petitioner and her guarantors were jointly liable to pay
a sum of ₹.28,08,082/- with interest to the respondent /
society.
10. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the
learned counsel for the respondent that execution proceedings
initiated by the respondent for executing the award passed as
per Ex.P7 is pending consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said
that transaction between the parties has not been proved by
the respondent / society by producing necessary documents. In
addition to Ex.P7, Ex.P8 to to Ex.P10 also proves the
transaction between the parties. Under the circumstances, I am
of the opinion that the Courts below are fully justified in
convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act since, she had
failed to rebut the presumption that arose against her as
aforesaid. The order of sentence passed by the Courts below as
against her is also just and proportionate. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC:2915
HC-KAR
The amount deposited by the petitioner, if any before the
Trial Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent /
complainant.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
