- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:502 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024 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: 1 . KALPANA C MUTHANNA, W/O LATE C P MUTHANNA, AGED ABOUT 65YEARS, 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 Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:502 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:502 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:502 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:502 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:502 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:502 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:502 CRL.RP No. 1138 of 2024 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