[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Namitha P S vs Kalpana C Muthanna on 6 January, 2026
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:502
CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024
HC-KAR
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. 1138 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
NAMITHA P S.,
W/O SUMANTH B M.,
AGED 50 YEARS,
COORG SPICES HOUSE,
SAI BABA MILL,
OPP. SMO COMPLEX,
MAIN ROAD, SIDDAPURA,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 253.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE]
AND:
Digitally signed by 1 . KALPANA C MUTHANNA,
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S W/O LATE C P MUTHANNA,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 65YEARS,
Court of Karnataka
2. JAHAN POONACHA C N.,
S/O LATE C P MUTHANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
3. JAISIMHA,
D/O LATE C P MUTHANNA,
W/O DEVAIAH VITTAL ALMENGADA,
AGED 40 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
NC: 2026:KHC:502
HC-KAR
R/AT VINOOR VILLAGE,
VIA KUSHALNAGAR,
SOMWAREPT TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI BHAT SHANKAR SHIVARAM, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 & R3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
05.08.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN CR.A.NO.45/2023
AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 15.04.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.437/2017 AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
NC: 2026:KHC:502
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed by I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in
Crl.A.no.45/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 15.04.2023 passed by Principal Civil Judge
and JMFC., Madikeri, in C.C.no.437/2017, this revision petition
is filed.
2. Sri TA Karumbaiah, learned counsel for petitioner
(accused) submitted, present proceedings arose out of private
complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) stating
that accused and her husband were carrying on business in
purchase and sale of coffee beans under name 'Coorg Spice
House' and well known to complainant, a Coffee Planter. On
02.04.2014 and 14.04.2010, accused purchased 140 bags of 50
Kgs. each of dry Robusta Coffee beans at Rs.4,000/- per bag
from complainant worth Rs.5,60,000/- promising to pay said
amount within one month of purchase, but, failed to pay it.
After great persuasion, accused issued post dated cheque
no.720347 dated 13.10.2015 for Rs.5,60,000/- drawn on State
NC: 2026:KHC:502
HC-KAR
Bank of India, Hebbal Industrial Area Branch, Mysore, which
when presented returned with endorsement 'Funds insufficient'
and accused failed to pay amount even after demand notice
dated 07.01.2015 got issued by complainant returned as
refused and thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI
Act.
3. It was submitted, on appearance accused denied
charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant deposed as
PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Thereafter, statement of
accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded by explaining
incriminating material, which was denied as false. Thereafter,
accused led defence evidence examining husband and herself
as DWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2. It was
submitted, though she had setup defence that complainant's
claim was in respect of alleged sale of coffee beans on
14.04.2010 which would be barred by limitation as on date of
alleged issuance of Ex.P1 - cheque, conviction of accused
would be unsustainable. Even appeal came to be dismissed
without re-appreciation, leading to this revision petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:502
HC-KAR
4. It was submitted, Ex.P4 - demand notice, sworn
statement as well as complaint, complainant had referred to
sale of coffee beans on 14.04.2010. But in affidavit
examination-in-chief, said date was corrected as 14.04.2014
with explanation that same was due to typographical error,
however no such clarification was stated in deposition.
Therefore contention about claim of complainant becoming time
barred was probabilized. Despite same, accused was convicted.
5. It was further submitted, when date of presentation
of cheque was 08.12.2015, issuance of Ex.P4 - demand notice
on 07.01.2015, would be prior to presentation and dishonour.
Therefore, complaint was not preceded by due demand notice.
Apart from above, demand notice was not served on accused.
6. Further, addressee in Ex.P4 was Vasanth P.M.,
which did not correspond either to name of accused or her
husband. Said demand notice was 2½ months of dishonor of
cheque, would breach provision of Section 138 of NI Act. Thus,
conviction was illegal and contrary to law. On said ground
sought for allowing revision petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:502
HC-KAR
7. On other hand, Sri Shankar S. Bhat, learned
counsel for complainant opposed revision petition. It was
submitted, contention about claim being time barred was
unjustified. It was submitted, though there was mention of sale
of coffee on 14.04.2010 claim was in respect of 140 bags of 50
Kgs. of coffee beans at Rs.4,000/- per bag supplied on
02.04.2014, which would be Rs.5,60,000/- mentioned in Ex.P1
- cheque. Further, there was typographical error in mentioning
date on Ex.P4 as 07.01.2015 instead of 07.01.2016. Ex.P5 -
postal receipt would clarify date of issuance as 08.01.2016.
Further, Ex.P3 is dated 22.12.2015, hence issuance of demand
notice on 08.01.2016 would meet requirements of Section 136
of NI Act. It was submitted, both Courts had on consideration
of entire material on record arrived at well reasoned
conclusions, leaving no scope for interference. On said ground
sought dismissal of revision petition.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and record.
9. From above, it is seen that revision petition is by
accused challenging concurrent judgment convicting accused
NC: 2026:KHC:502
HC-KAR
for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge is
alleging perversity.
10. Insofar as first contention that about claim being
time barred, perusal of complaint and sworn statement of
complainant would indeed reveal complainant's assertion about
sale of 140 bags of coffee beans on 02.04.2014 and
14.04.2010 for Rs.5,60,000/-. It is also stated that after
accused failed to pay amount within time agreed, complainant
insisted on payment and accused had issued cheque. Perusal of
pleadings/deposition would indicate that there was sale of 140
bags of coffee beans on 14.04.2010 as well as on 02.04.2014.
It is not stated that cheque was issued to cover both liabilities.
On other hand, amount which would be payable for 140 bags of
dry coffee beans of 50 Kgs. each at Rs.4,000/- per bag would
total to Rs.5,60,000/-. Claim based on sale made on
02.04.2014 would be within time.
11. Insofar as Ex.P4 - demand notice being defective,
same is seen to be a hyper technical defence. Exs.P5 - postal
receipt as well as Ex.P6 - postal track report duly establish that
Ex.P4 was despatched on 08.01.2016. Ex.P6 as well as Ex.P7
NC: 2026:KHC:502
HC-KAR
would indicate same returning as refused. Even contention that
notice was issued beyond time limit on dishonour would not be
substantiated as date of intimation of dishonour on complainant
as per Ex.P3 is 22.12.2015. Therefore, demand notice dated
07.01.2016 would be within time. Hence ground about demand
notice being defective would not sustain.
12. It is also seen that both Courts arrived at respective
well reasoned conclusions after appreciating entire material on
record. Same are not established to suffer from perversity or in
infraction of any statutory provisions.
Consequently, revision petition is without merit and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*/AV/GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70
