[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
H S Lokanath vs Sadashiva Rao on 6 January, 2026
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:497
CRL.RP No. 1523 of 2023
C/W CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2023
CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1523 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1520 OF 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1521 OF 2023
CRL.R.P.NO.1523/2023:
BETWEEN:
PREETHIPRIYA ENTERPRISES
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
H.S. LOKANATH
S/O LATE K.R. SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.445/1, KRS NILAYA,
1ST CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA
TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 221.
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI ...PETITIONER
PARLATTAYA S [BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE]
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka AND:
SADASHIVA RAO S/O LATE BABURAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.585, GOTAMA,
B.H ROAD, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 221.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI VINOD REDDY V., ADVOCATE]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT TIPTUR IN
C.C.NO.1757/2015 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN
CRL.A.NO.10010/2023 DATED 31.08.2023 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT.
CRL.R.P.NO.1493/2023:
BETWEEN:
PRAJWAL FOOD TECH
REP BY ITS PARTNERS:
1. H. S. LOKANATH
S/O. LATE SR. R. SUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. C. G. INDIRA
W/O. H. D. KOKANATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 445/1,
KRS NILAYA, 1ST CROSS,
VINAYAKA NAGARA,
TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 221.
...PETITIONERS
[BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE]
AND:
SADASHIVA RAO, S/O LATE BABURAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.585, GOTAMA,
B.H ROAD, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 221.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI VINOD REDDY V., ADVOCATE]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT TIPTUR IN
C.C.NO.1759/2015 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.10009/2023 DATED 31.08.2023 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
CRL.R.P.NO.1520/2023:
BETWEEN:
H S LOKANATH,
S/O LATE K.R. SUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 445/1, KRS NILAYA,
1ST CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA,
TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISRICT - 572 221.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE]
AND:
SADASHIVA RAO,
S/O LATE BABURAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.585, GOTAMA,
B.H. ROAD, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 221.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI VINOD REDDY V., ADVOCATE]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT TIPTUR IN
C.C.NO.1758/2015 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.10012/2023 DATED 31.08.2023 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
CRL.R.P.NO.1521/2023:
BETWEEN:
PRAJWAL FOOD TECH,
REP BY ITS PARTNERS
1 . H.S. LOKANATH,
S/O LATE K.R. SUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2 . C.G. INDIRA W/O H.D. LOKANATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.445/1,
KRS NILAYA, 1ST CROSS,
VINAYAKA NAGARA,
TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 221.
...PETITIONERS
[BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE]
AND:
SADASHIVA RAO,
S/O LATE BABURAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.585, GOTAMA,
B.H ROAD, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 221.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI VINOD REDDY V., ADVOCATE]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED J.M.F.C AT TIPTUR IN C.C.NO.1756/2015 AND
CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CRL.A.NO.10011/2023 DATED 31.08.2023 AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
THESE PETITIONS ARE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 04.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CAV ORDER
Sri KA Chandrashekar, learned counsel for petitioners
(accused) in all these matters, submitted that revision petitions
were against concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting
accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short) as follows:
Appellate
Sl. Trial Court/Date
This Court Court/Date of
Nos. of disposal
disposal
Crl.A.no.10010/2023, C.C.no.1757/2015,
Crl.RP
1. dismissed on dismissed on
31.08.2023. 04.02.2023.
Crl.A.no.10009/2023, C.C.no.1759/2015,
Crl.RP
2. dismissed on dismissed on
31.08.2023. 04.02.2023.
Crl.A.no.10012/2023, C.C.no.1758/2015,
Crl.RP
3. dismissed on dismissed on
31.08.2023. 04.02.2023.
Crl.A.no.10011/2023, C.C.no.1756/2015,
Crl.RP
4. dismissed on dismissed on
31.08.2023. 04.02.2023.
2. It was submitted, Revision petitions arose out of
similar facts and circumstances and that challenge was on
similar grounds. Therefore reference would be made to
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
particular facts in Crl.R.P.no.1523/2023 only for sake of
convenience.
3. It was submitted, present proceedings arose out of
a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under
Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for
short) alleging that accused Firm was due to complainant a
sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and for discharge of same, issued cheque
bearing no.122968 dated 30.03.2015 drawn on State Bank of
Mysuru, Tipturu Branch, which when presented returned
dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 12.04.2015
and thereafter, demand notice dated 23.04.2015 got issued by
complainant returned with postal shara 'addressee absent for
seven days', and accused failed to repay cheque amount within
time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section
138 of NI Act.
4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied
charges and sought trial, wherein, complainant examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On appraisal of
incriminating material, accused denied same as false, which
was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC.
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Accused did not lead defence evidence. It was submitted,
accused had raised several defences and substantiated same in
cross-examination of complainant, but trial Court convicted
accused without appreciation of entire material. Even appeal
filed against same was dismissed without proper re-
appreciation, leading to this revision. Thus, impugned
judgments suffered from perversity calling for interference.
5. It was submitted, accused had denied having any
financial transactions with complainant and consequently
contended that cheque in question was not issued towards any
legally enforceable debt. It was submitted, complainant had
failed to disclose even minimum particulars such as date, time
and place of lending to accused, which would be a material
omission, when accused had denied any transaction with
complainant. It was submitted, in cross-examination
complainant examined as PW.1 admitted that there was no
agreement for payment of interest on amount lent. Despite
same, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court had
directed return of cheque amount with 12% interest p.a., which
would be contrary to law.
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
6. It was submitted, while above contentions were
common to all revision petitions, there were specific additional
contentions insofar as Crl.R.P.no.1493/2023 and
Crl.R.P.no.1521/2023 only, namely that in cross-examination,
PW.1 - complainant admitted that only accused no.1 had come
for borrowing money and that Accused no.2 was not a
signatory to cheques in question. Therefore, arraignment of
Accused no.2 was challenged relying on ratio laid down in
following decisions:
(i) Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
reported in (2013) 8 SCC 71;
(ii) Upasana Mishra v. Trek Technology India Pvt.
Ltd., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1740;
(iii) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, reported in
(2024) 15 SCC 443;
(iv) Susela Padmavathy Amma v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
reported in (2024) 12 SCC 131;
(v) Smt.Veenashri v. Sri Shankar, reported in
2022:KHC:35359 and
(vi) Parveen Kumar v. Devki Nandan Jain, reported
in AIR Online 2021 Kar 2777.
7. On above grounds, learned counsel prayed for
allowing revision petitions.
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
8. On other hand, Sri Vinod Reddy V., learned counsel
for complainant opposed revision petitions. It was submitted,
both Courts on consideration of entire material on record had
arrived at reasoned conclusions which were in accordance with
law. Therefore, there was no scope for interference and on said
ground sought for dismissal of petitions.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and record.
10. These revision petitions are by accused challenging
concurrent findings, convicting them for offences punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act, on ground of perversity.
Contentions required to be considered herein are firstly,
whether conviction of accused would require to be set-aside on
account of failure to disclose particulars of lending money by
complainant and secondly, legality of imposition of 12%
interest on cheque amount in all revision petitions and insofar
as Crl.R.P.no.1493/2023 and Crl.R.P.no.1521/2023, third
contention about illegal arraignment and conviction of accused
no.2.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
11. Insofar as first contention, perusal of records in
C.C.no.1757/2015, indeed reveal that complainant omitted to
state date, time and place of lending money to accused in
complaint, demand notice as well as in examination-in-chief. In
cross-examination, admission about above omission is elicited.
At same time, Ex.P5 - postal cover containing Ex.P3 - demand
notice returned with shara 'addressee absent upto seven days,
return to sender', substantiating deemed service. And since
there is no reply, inference has to be drawn against accused.
PW.1 stated that amount lent was mentioned in his Income Tax
return of year 2014, but, did not produce same, even after
admitting that same could secured from IT Authorities and
produced. But, suggestions made by accused that cheques in
question were not issued towards debt alleged and that they
were given as security for loan of Rs.10 Lakhs borrowed in year
2012, which was cleared, would dilute defence denying
borrowal. Even subsequent admission elicited that accused no.2
had not accompanied accused no.1 while borrowing amount,
would also same effect.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
12. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court noted
presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act
and consequence of same casting onus on to accused. It noted
defence adopted that cheque was given as security for earlier
loan would support statutory presumptions. It notes failure of
accused to substantiate issuance of Ex.P1 was as security for
earlier loan, leading to conclusion about failure to upset
statutory presumptions. Based on said conclusion, it convicted
accused.
13. While passing impugned judgment, Appellate Court
relied on ratio laid down in P.Rasiya v. Abdul Nazer reported
in 2022 SCC Online SC 1131, for proposition that once
complainant established that cheque was issued by accused
and his signature was admitted, onus would shift on accused to
prove contrary. It noted there was failure of accused to produce
any material to establish about earlier loan and issuance of
cheque 0as security for said loan. It therefore upheld conviction
of accused.
14. In view of ratio in P. Rasiya's case (supra), when
there is admission by accused of his signature on cheque and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
issuance of cheque to complainant, failure to state particulars
of lending would not be fatal, finding of both Courts on first
question would be justified.
15. Next contention regarding imposition of 12% on
cheque amount as part of sentence being contrary to statute, it
is seen that provisions of Section 138 of NI Act provide for
maximum sentence of imprisonment for period of two years or
with fine of upto twice cheque amount or with both. It is settled
law that while passing orders of sentence in case of conviction
under NI Act, Courts would require to take note of need for
recompense of loss sustained by complainant due to dishonor
of cheque and time spent in litigation. Though sentence would
be within statutory maximum, due to proceedings dilating until
now, calculation of interest awarded until now is taken into
account, same may exceed statutory limit. Therefore, revision
petitions succeed to this extent.
16. Insofar as third contentions, admission elicited
about accused no.2 not being signatory to cheque as well as
admission that she had not come to complainant at time of
borrowal of money would lend credence to challenge conviction
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:497
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
of accused no.2. Therefore, insofar as Crl.R.P.no.1493/2023
and Crl.R.P.no.1521/2023, Revision Petition by accused no.2
would succeed.
17. In view of above conclusions, Revision Petitions are
allowed in part, only insofar as sentence modifying it in all
revision petitions to fine amount equal to twice cheque amount;
and setting aside order of conviction of accused no.2 in
Crl.R.P.no.1493/2023 and Crl.R.P.no.1521/2023. It is clarified
that impugned judgments are confirmed in all other respects.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*/AV/GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65
