Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21790 (KAR)

C. MUNIRAJA v. JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY

CRL.RP/1409/2025 · 2026-06-16

H P Sandesh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1409 OF 2025 BETWEEN: C. MUNIRAJA S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.123 1ST MAIN ROAD, BENNIGANAHALLI OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORVANINAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 036. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY S/O SHIVARAM SHETTY H AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.401 PHOENIX BOULE WARD 'C' BLOCK, 60 FEET ROAD AECS KUNDANAHALLI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 037. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ADITYA M.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 (ACJM-34) IN CC NO.52027/2022 DATED 03.09.2024, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, CONFIRMED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.25343/2024, BY THE LEARNED LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYOHALL, BENGALURU (CCH-73) DATED 14.08.2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. This matter is listed for admission. 2. Heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The factual matrix case of the complainant before the trial complainant is that while invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 specifically pleaded in the complaint that both of them are friends known to each other from last 10 years. Out of acquaintance, accused approached him in the first week of October 2017 seeking for financial assistance to perform his daughter's marriage and also to meet his urgent family necessities. The complainant had arranged and paid ₹2,90,000/- to the accused on 20.10.2017 from his - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 savings as a hand loan by way of cash. The accused had acknowledged the same and assured to repay the same within six months. The accused did not repay the same and request was made repeatedly and in the month of 2021, he had issued a post-dated cheque on 17.01.2022. When the same was presented returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' and hence, he got issued a legal notice on 26.02.2022 and the same was duly served on the accused on 01.03.2022. Despite receipt of legal notice, accused has not paid the cheque amount and he has issued an untenable reply and hence, filed the complaint and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the trial Court and he did not plead guilty and hence, the plaintiff in order to substantiate his case examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents Exhibits P1 to P7. On the other hand, the accused also examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked Documents Exhibits D1 to D8. The trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that issuance of cheque is not disputed and also the bank account also not disputed and signature also not disputed and comes to the conclusion that there will be a presumption under the circumstances and also taken note of in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 detail the evidence of DW1. The only evidence of PW1 is that complainant was running a chit and he took the cheque from him and the same was suppressed and the accused as well as other customers issued blank cheques in favour of the complainant and taking advantage of the same, the complainant has filled the date and amount and by presenting the cheque, dragged the accused to the Court. He deposes that he issued the blank cheque in favour of the complainant in the year 2017 at the time of starting the chit with the complainant and this witness was also subjected to cross examination and in the cross examination, he admits that he has performed the marriage of his daughter in the year 2017, when the document was confronted as per Exhibit P7. But he denies availing of ₹2,90,000/- for performing the marriage of his daughter. In order to substantiate that complainant was running the chit business nothing is placed on record and even not examined any of the other subscribers of the chit. To substantiate his defence that cheque was given at the time of subscribing the chit and the same is also taken note of by the trial Court and the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no rebuttal evidence even though specific defence was taken. The First - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 Appellate Court also having considered the material on record and taken note of both oral and documentary evidence of PW1 as well as evidence of PW1 and PW2 and in paragraph number 25, comes to the conclusion that on careful perusal of the judgment of the trial Court with the citations and also the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that though complainant contended that accused had issued the cheque for discharge of not legally liable debt and the same is not substantiated, instead of complainant substantiated his case marking of document Exhibit P7 and the same was admitted. Except denial and contending that it was the chit transaction and the same is not substantiated and the same also discussed in paragraph numbers 26, 27 and 28 by the Appellate Court and confirmed the same. 4. Now the main contention of the revision petitioner before this Court is that admittedly, the amount was borrowed in the month of October 2017 and counsel also submits that cheque was given in the month of December 2021 and the same is towards the time barred debt. The counsel also vehemently contends that when the statutory notice was issued and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 same was replied but belatedly, the counsel would submit that from the year 2017 to 2019 no notice was issued to the accused in writing to pay the amount. It is also suggested in the same sequence although PW1 denied the suggestion that since PW1 did not pay the amount, he had not written any letter. The counsel also would submit that date is time-barred and also specific defence was taken and rebutted the evidence of complainant by examining himself and marking of documents of Exhibit D1 to D8. 5. Per contra, the counsel appearing to the respondent would submit that trial Court has taken note of oral evidence and documentary evidence of PW1 particularly, the cheque Exhibit P1 and the endorsement Exhibit P2 and legal notice, acknowledgment, reply and also the marriage invitation card. The very case of the complainant is that he had given the money for performing the marriage of the daughter of accused. Ex.P7- marriage invitation card is admitted. The same was taken note of by trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and there is no any error. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, the scope of revision is very limited. The first limb of argument of the petitioner counsel is that the cheque was issued towards the time barred debt and counsel also would submit that the same was not taken note of by both the Courts. The other limb of argument before the Court is that when the specific defence was taken that the cheque was given towards the chit transaction and not in respect of the money transaction, the same has not been considered. 7. The counsel for the respondent would submit that no dispute with regard to performing of the marriage of the daughter in the year 2017 and wedding card also shown to the accused during the course of cross-examination. Having taken note of the evidence available on the record, it is a specific case of the complainant that he had lent an amount of ₹2,90,000/- during the month of October 2017 to perform the marriage of daughter of the accused. The accused also admits in the cross- examination that he had performed the marriage of his daughter and admitted Exhibit P7 - marriage invitation card. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 The very defence of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the cheque was given in connection with the chit transaction and in order to substantiate that complainant was running the chit, nothing is placed on record and any document with regard to the chit transaction is concerned even for payment of any money towards the chit and so also none of the subscribers of the chit were examined before the Court to substantiate the same. Hence, there is no any rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of NI Act. 8. The second limb of argument is that it was the transaction of the year 2017 and cheque was given in the year 2021 and the same is time barred. But the fact is that the accused had received the amount for marriage of his daughter from the complainant and assured to pay within six months. But the defence of the accused is that it was a chit transaction is not substantiated and it is the specific case of the complainant that on insisting the payment, he had issued the cheque in the year 2021 and prior to that he had assured and hence, once the complainant had acknowledged the earlier advancing of loan and also in acknowledging the amount which was borrowed, he - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29221 CRL.RP No. 1409 of 2025 had issued the subject matter of cheque and not denied the signature and also not denied the cheque Exhibit P1 and the very contention cannot be accepted in view of acknowledging the same and issuance of the cheque and the same is towards the legally recoverable debt he has issued the cheque and hence, the second limb of argument also cannot be accepted. 9. Having considered the material undercut, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and the same is not suffers from any legality and correctness of the judgment of the trial Court and Appellate Court and hence no ground is made out to admit the revision. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29