SRI P K BOPANNA vs SRI P S POOVAIAH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31326
CRL.RP No. 411 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.411 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI P K BOPANNA
S/O LATE KARIAPPA
AGED 45 YEARS
R/AT HEBBETTAGERI VILLAGE
K NIDUGANE POST
MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISRICT
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SRI P S POOVAIAH
S/O SUBBAIAH
AGED 62 YEARS
R/AT HEBBETTAGERI VILLAGE
K NIDUGANE POST
MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31326
CRL.RP No. 411 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DTD 17.02.2026 IN
CRL.A.NO.62/2023 OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KODAGU AT MADIKERI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the judgment
dated 28.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.444/2019 by the Trial
Court and against the judgment dated 17.02.2026 passed in
Crl.A.No.62/2023 by the Appellate Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
3. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court
is that the complainant and the accused were well known to
each other since from several years. With that
acquaintance, accused approached the complainant for
financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31326
CRL.RP No. 411 of 2026
HC-KAR
same within 15 days and also issued a posted dated Cheque
bearing No.281280 dated 13.06.2018. As per the request of
the accused, the complainant has not presented the said
Cheque within due date. Thereafter, on 05.12.2018, the
complainant presented the said Cheque and the same was
dishonoured as ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, issue the legal
notice but the accused failed to reply to the said notice and
also not repaid the amount. Hence, complaint was filed
against the accused for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I. Act.
4. The Trial Court considering both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record comes to the
conclusion that complainant has proved the existence of
legally enforceable debt and the liability existing on accused.
Thus, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Appellate Court also having
reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has rightly
convicted the accused and confirmed the judgment of the
Trial Court.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31326
CRL.RP No. 411 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. This revision petition is filed challenging the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence of both the
Courts.
6. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently
contend that both the Courts have committed an error in
considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record. Hence, interference of this Court is required.
7. This Court heard the matter in part on the
previous date of hearing on the issue raised by the petitioner
counsel that the subject matter of the cheque was presented
before the bank after 5 months 22 days and validity of the
cheque is only for a period of 3 months. In this regard, this
court directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce the
RBI guidelines in taking the decision reducing the period of
06 months to 03 months. Hence, today, the counsel
produced the copy of the letter of the Reserve Bank of India
dated 04.11.2011. On perusal of the same, it discloses that
the Reserve Bank is satisfied that in public interest and in
the interest of banking policy, it is necessary to reduce the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31326
CRL.RP No. 411 of 2026
HC-KAR
period within which Cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker’s
cheques are presented for payment from 06 months to 03
months from the date of such instrument. Accordingly, in
exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35A of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Reserve Bank hereby directs
that with effect from 01.04.2012, bank should not make
payment of Cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker’s cheques
bearing that date or any subsequent date, if they are
presented beyond the period of 03 months from the date of
such instrument.
8. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contention also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in (2001) 3 SCC 609 in the case of SHRI ISHAR
ALLOY STEELS LTD. vs JAYASWALS NECO LTD. and
brought to notice of this court paragraphs 7, 8 and 10,
wherein held that the statutory period for presentation of
Cheque was within 06 months.
9. The counsel contend that in 2001, the validity of
the Cheque is 06 months. Subsequent to the RBI letter dated
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31326
CRL.RP No. 411 of 2026
HC-KAR
04.11.2011, from 01.04.2012, the period of 06 months is
reduced to 03 months. In the case on hand, the subject
matter of cheque was presented on 05.12.2018 and cheque
was dated 13.06.2018. Thus, it is clear that the Cheque was
presented after the statutory period fixed by the BRI. The
said fact was not taken note of by the Trial Court as well as
the Appellate Court.
10. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of the
Kerala High Court sitting at Ernakulam in the case of CRL.
MC No.8842/2019 decided on 14.02.2023 and brought to
notice of this Court paragraph 3 wherein it is held that the
offence under Section 138 will be attracted only if the cheque
is presented within 6 months from the date on which it is
drawn or within a period of its validity whichever is earlier.
The Reserve Bank has fixed the period of validity of cheques
as 3 months. As the cheque was presented after the validity
period, the offence under Section 138 is not attracted.
11. Having considered the factual aspects of the case
that the cheque was considered by the bank after the
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31326
CRL.RP No. 411 of 2026
HC-KAR
statutory period of three months giving an endorsement as
‘funds insufficient’ and not on the ground that cheque is
invalid. Even though the said ground was urged in the appeal
before the appellate Court and though the appellate Court
discussed the same in paragraphs 15 and 16, not considered
the said fact. In view of the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra and also in view of the decision
taken by the RBI in its letter dated 04.01.2011, the validity
of the cheque is only for a period of 3 months. Hence, in the
case on hand, there cannot be any proceedings under
Section 138 of N.I. Act since the subject matter of Cheque
was presented after three months.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The revision petition is allowed.
The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 28.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.444/2019 by the Trial
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31326
CRL.RP No. 411 of 2026
HC-KAR
Court and the judgment of confirmation dated 17.02.2026
passed in Crl.A.No.62/2023 by the Appellate Court are set
aside. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN