Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 158 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-)
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1020 OF 2025
IN CRL.RP No. 158/2021:
BETWEEN:
M.S. SHANKARANARAYANA
S/O M. SRINIVASACHAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O CAR STREET
THIRTHAHALLI TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADV.)
AND:
S.M. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O S.K. MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/O NO.303, SHIVA NILAYA
LBS NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI D.P. PRASANNA, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.09.2020 PASSED
BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN
CRL.A.NO.21/2020 IN SO FAR AS CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02.01.2020 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIVAMOGGA IN
C.C.NO.1588/2012 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN CRL.RP NO. 1020/2025:
BETWEEN:
S.M. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O S.K. MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RO. NO.303, SHIVA NILAYA
LAL BAHADUR SHASTHRI NAGARA
SOWLANGA ROAD
SHIVAMOGA - 577 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.P. PRASANNA, ADV.)
AND:
M.S. SHANKARANARAYANA
S/O M. SRINIVASACHARI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, M/S SRINIVASA
AGENCIES, CAR STREET
THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE III
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A NO.21/2020
DATED 28.09.2020 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
CC NO.1588/2012 DATED 02.01.2020 BY THE IV ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC SHIVAMOGGA.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
1. These two revision petitions are filed by the accused
and complainant respectively. While accused has challenged the
conviction and sentence passed by trial Magistrate modified by
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
the First Appellate Court, complainant has challenged the order
of the First Appellate Court reducing the fine amount.
2. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present petitions are as under:
Accused issued a cheque in a sum of ₹.2,25,000/-
towards the repayment of the loan amount. Admittedly, said
cheque got dishonoured with endorsement "Funds insufficient".
There was no compliance to the callings of the notice.
Therefore, action was initiated by the complainant. Learned
trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities,
recorded the evidence of the complainant as well as the oral
evidence of the accused convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and imposed double
the cheque amount as fine amount.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.21 of
2021.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
detail, noted that as per Ex.D1, a sum of ₹ 1,75,000/- has been
paid by the accused to the complainant towards the loan
amount and taking note of the fact that the minimum rate of
interest is calculated on the balance sum of ₹.50,000/-, from
2004 to 2008, the amount payable by the accused to the
complainant will be more than the cheque amount and has
allowed the appeal in part reducing the fine amount from
double cheque amount to sum of ₹.3,50,000/-.
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court in this revision petition whereas the
complainant has challenged the deduction of the fine amount
from double the cheque amount to sum of ₹.3,50,000/-.
6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
7. On such perusal of the material on record, there is
no dispute that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to the accused and
signature found therein is that of the accused.
8. Loan transaction is also established by the
suggestions made to the complainant and production of Ex.D1
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
which is a bank passbook wherein repayments have been
established.
9. However, in the cross-examination of accused, he
categorically admits that apart from the payments that is
reflected in the Ex.D1 passbook, there are few cash payments
which has not been accounted by the complainant and thereby
there was no legally recoverable debt covered under Ex.P1 and
a blank cheque which has been given as a security at the time
of taking loan has been misused by the complainant and thus,
sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Per contra, Sri D. P. Prasanna learned counsel for
the complainant while opposing the revision grounds of the
accused, contented that the unilateral deduction of the double
the cheque amount as the fine amount by the First Appellate
Court is incorrect and sought for allowing his revision petition.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. Since the cheque is admittedly belonging to the
accused and it has been dishonored and sum of ₹.1,75,000/- is
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
paid as per the entries found in Ex.D1, the learned trial Judge
was not justified in imposing the double the cheque amount,
which has been rightly rectified by the learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court.
13. Since the transaction is admitted and the plea of
discharge is not established by the accused of the entire loan
amount, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the
judgment of the First Appellate Court, which confirms the order
of conviction but has reduced the fine amount.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, following:-
ORDER
Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the
complainant, under due identification.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 158 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-)
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1020 OF 2025
IN CRL.RP No. 158/2021:
BETWEEN:
M.S. SHANKARANARAYANA
S/O M. SRINIVASACHAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O CAR STREET
THIRTHAHALLI TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADV.)
AND:
S.M. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O S.K. MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/O NO.303, SHIVA NILAYA
LBS NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI D.P. PRASANNA, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.09.2020 PASSED
BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN
CRL.A.NO.21/2020 IN SO FAR AS CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02.01.2020 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIVAMOGGA IN
C.C.NO.1588/2012 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN CRL.RP NO. 1020/2025:
BETWEEN:
S.M. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O S.K. MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RO. NO.303, SHIVA NILAYA
LAL BAHADUR SHASTHRI NAGARA
SOWLANGA ROAD
SHIVAMOGA - 577 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.P. PRASANNA, ADV.)
AND:
M.S. SHANKARANARAYANA
S/O M. SRINIVASACHARI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, M/S SRINIVASA
AGENCIES, CAR STREET
THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE III
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A NO.21/2020
DATED 28.09.2020 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
CC NO.1588/2012 DATED 02.01.2020 BY THE IV ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC SHIVAMOGGA.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
1. These two revision petitions are filed by the accused
and complainant respectively. While accused has challenged the
conviction and sentence passed by trial Magistrate modified by
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
the First Appellate Court, complainant has challenged the order
of the First Appellate Court reducing the fine amount.
2. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present petitions are as under:
Accused issued a cheque in a sum of ₹.2,25,000/-
towards the repayment of the loan amount. Admittedly, said
cheque got dishonoured with endorsement "Funds insufficient".
There was no compliance to the callings of the notice.
Therefore, action was initiated by the complainant. Learned
trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities,
recorded the evidence of the complainant as well as the oral
evidence of the accused convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and imposed double
the cheque amount as fine amount.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.21 of
2021.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
detail, noted that as per Ex.D1, a sum of ₹ 1,75,000/- has been
paid by the accused to the complainant towards the loan
amount and taking note of the fact that the minimum rate of
interest is calculated on the balance sum of ₹.50,000/-, from
2004 to 2008, the amount payable by the accused to the
complainant will be more than the cheque amount and has
allowed the appeal in part reducing the fine amount from
double cheque amount to sum of ₹.3,50,000/-.
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court in this revision petition whereas the
complainant has challenged the deduction of the fine amount
from double the cheque amount to sum of ₹.3,50,000/-.
6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
7. On such perusal of the material on record, there is
no dispute that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to the accused and
signature found therein is that of the accused.
8. Loan transaction is also established by the
suggestions made to the complainant and production of Ex.D1
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
which is a bank passbook wherein repayments have been
established.
9. However, in the cross-examination of accused, he
categorically admits that apart from the payments that is
reflected in the Ex.D1 passbook, there are few cash payments
which has not been accounted by the complainant and thereby
there was no legally recoverable debt covered under Ex.P1 and
a blank cheque which has been given as a security at the time
of taking loan has been misused by the complainant and thus,
sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Per contra, Sri D. P. Prasanna learned counsel for
the complainant while opposing the revision grounds of the
accused, contented that the unilateral deduction of the double
the cheque amount as the fine amount by the First Appellate
Court is incorrect and sought for allowing his revision petition.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. Since the cheque is admittedly belonging to the
accused and it has been dishonored and sum of ₹.1,75,000/- is
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12823
CRL.RP No. 158 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 1020 of 2025
HC-KAR
paid as per the entries found in Ex.D1, the learned trial Judge
was not justified in imposing the double the cheque amount,
which has been rightly rectified by the learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court.
13. Since the transaction is admitted and the plea of
discharge is not established by the accused of the entire loan
amount, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the
judgment of the First Appellate Court, which confirms the order
of conviction but has reduced the fine amount.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, following:-
ORDER
Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the
complainant, under due identification.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25