Cheque Bounce: Karnataka High Court Refuses Fresh Trial Of Convict Who Skipped Cross-Examination 12 Times, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs

The Karnataka High Court has refused to remand a cheque bounce case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after finding that the convict had repeatedly failed to cross-examine the complainant and lead any defence evidence, holding that the case was a “classic example of abuse of process.”

Justice HP Sandesh was hearing a revision petition challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting the petitioner in the cheque bounce case and seeking remand of the matter.

The Court noted that the complainant remained present before the Trial Court on 12 occasions, but the petitioner failed to cross-examine him, and instead sought exemptions on 21 hearing dates.

The Court remarked, “He made the complainant to be present before the Court for his cross-examination 12 times and instead of appearing before the Court, exemptions were filed on 21 dates of hearing.” 

The petitioner also failed to place any defence evidence, the Court observed.

“Having taken note of the conduct of the petitioner, it is nothing but a harassment made to the complainant,” the Court said.

The Court rejected the petitioner's submission that it was, in fact, his counsel who failed to cross examine the witness. It pointed out that the Trial Court's order sheet showed that the advocate informed the court that he had received no instructions from the accused (now convict). The High Court further noted that the petitioner later filed a complaint before the Bar Council against his advocate.

Taking into account all the material on record, the Court held, “It is not a case for remand and also it is a classic example of abuse of process.”

The Court dismissed the revision petition and imposed exemplary costs of Rs 1 Lakh, directing that the amount be deposited before the Registry within two weeks. It further directed that, in the event of default, the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri, should recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.

The case arose from the complainant's allegations that the petitioner had borrowed Rs 10 lakh in October 2018 from him and promised to repay the amount within four months. After failing to repay the loan, the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the complainant in February 2019. But the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “funds insufficient.”

Subsequently, a notice was served to the petitioner. When no reply was received, a case under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed. During the trial, the complainant had examined himself as the first prosecution witness. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner, and the conviction was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Court.

The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the High Court, seeking remand of the matter on the ground that the legal notice did not mention the exact date on which the loan was borrowed and that he should be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Opposing the plea, the respondent submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly remained absent and failed to cross-examine the complainant.

Case: SRI MUDDURA M. SOMANNA @ PRASAD v SRI B. RAMESH

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.636 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order