Karnataka HC Upholds ₹90,000 Cheque-Dishonour Conviction Despite Accused’s 2012 Lost-Cheque-Book Claim And Silence After Legal Notice

The complainant alleged that he lent the accused ₹90,000 in December 2016 and that the accused issued a cheque dated 6 June 2017 towards repayment. The cheque was dishonoured, and the accused did not pay despite receiving the statutory demand notice.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and imposed a fine of ₹1,10,000; the appellate court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the accused maintained that he had lost the cheque book in 2012 and disputed the complainant’s financial capacity to advance the loan.

He also sought to produce additional documents, including a copy of his 2012 police complaint.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provides for liability where a cheque issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability is dishonoured and the drawer fails to pay after statutory notice.

The Court referred to the limits of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: interference is warranted where the lower courts’ findings are perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly unreasonable, or untenable in law, rather than merely because another view is possible.

It also relied on Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2025 SC 1931, and Kunte Gowda v. Thurubaiah, SLP (Crl.) No. 2247/2024, decided 4 August 2026, as cited in the judgment, concerning the significance of failing to respond to a statutory notice and the accused’s initial burden to raise a specific defence about the complainant’s financial capacity.

The Court found that the accused had received the demand notice but neither replied to it nor lodged a complaint alleging that the complainant had misused the lost cheque.

It held that the trial and appellate courts had properly assessed the evidence and that their findings did not disclose a basis for revisional interference.

As to the additional evidence application, the police endorsement had already been marked as Ex. D1, the accused could have produced the complaint copy before the trial court, and the judgment in a separate case was not relevant to deciding this matter.

It dismissed the criminal revision petition and the application to produce additional documents, and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.