The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with the concurrent conviction of an accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that he had repeatedly failed to cross-examine the complainant despite being given multiple opportunities by the trial court. Holding that a plea for remand at this stage would amount to an abuse of the judicial process, the Court dismissed the revision petition and imposed exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh.
Background of the Case
The revision petition was filed by Sri Muddura M. Somanna @ Prasad against Sri B. Ramesh, challenging the judgments of the trial court dated July 2, 2022, and the appellate court dated February 1, 2024, which had upheld his conviction in a cheque dishonour case.
According to the complaint, the complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹10 lakh as a hand loan in October 2018 to meet urgent financial commitments and promised repayment within four months. After failing to repay the amount, the accused allegedly issued a cheque dated February 14, 2019. When presented for encashment, the cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "funds insufficient." A statutory legal notice followed, but no reply was received, leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the legal notice did not mention the exact date on which the loan had been advanced and requested that the matter be remanded to the trial court for an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.
Court's Observations
Justice H.P. Sandesh examined the trial court record and found that the complainant had remained available for cross-examination on 12 different hearing dates, but the accused neither cross-examined the witness nor led any defence evidence. The Court also noted that exemption applications were filed on 21 occasions, causing repeated delays in the proceedings.
Rejecting the plea for remand, the Court observed:
“It is not a case for remand and also it is a classic example of abuse of process.”
The Court further remarked that the petitioner had even filed a complaint against his own advocate while failing to provide proper instructions during the trial. In these circumstances, the Court held that reopening the proceedings would only prolong litigation and unfairly burden the complainant.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. It imposed exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited with the Registry within two weeks.
The Court further ordered that if the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri, should recover it as arrears of land revenue.
Case Details
Case Title: Sri Muddura M. Somanna @ Prasad v. Sri B. Ramesh
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 636 of 2024
Judge: Justice H.P. Sandesh
Decision Date: July 23, 2026
