Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra K.A vs Prathap Simha on 12 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2458
CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3197 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K. A.,
MANAGING DIRECTOR ,
M/S. KRISHNA SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.59, SRI KRISHNA SUDHA,
WEST AANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI MAIN ROAD,
GANDHI BAZAR, BENGALURU - 560 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by PRATHAP SIMHA,
NAGAVENI S/O K.RAMACHANDRA,
Location:
High Court AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
of Karnataka SHO NO.F10, 1ST FLOOR,
GREEN CITY BUILDING,
NEAR NAGANAKATTE,
THOKKOTTU, MANGALURU - 575 017.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONFIRMATION OF THE CONVICTION PASSED BY THE VI ADDL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU AND
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2458
CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025
HC-KAR
ENHANCING OF THE FINE AMOUNT FROM 65,05,000 /- TO
88,40,000/-, DATED 22.10.2024 IN CRL REV PET NO 252/2023
BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND
ETC.,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:
"a. Call for records on the file of VI Addl District & Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangaluru in Crl Rev Pet No 252/2023 & the Court Of JMFC IV Court at Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada in CC No 4165/2019.
b. Set-aside the Judgment of confirmation of the conviction passed by the VI Addl District & Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangaluru & enhancing of the fine amount from 65,05,000/- to 88,40,000/-, dated 22.10.2024 in Crl Rev Pet No 252/2023 by allowing this Petition filed by the Petitioner.
c. Set-aside the Judgement of Court Of JMFC IV Court at Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada in CC No 4165/2019, dated 26.9.2023 convicting the Petitioner for the offences under Sec 138 of N.I.Act.
d. Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case."-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2458 CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri.Rajan Kumar K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Coordinate Bench considered a petition between the same parties which concerned conviction of the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the hands of the Court of Session to consider the matter afresh. He would submit that this matter also should be remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to consider the matter afresh. The Coordinate Bench in Crl.R.P.No.41/2025 has held as follows:
"8. The petitioner who had challenged the judgment of conviction had filed an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. The said application has been allowed by the appellate Court by order dated 31.10.2023 and sentence has been suspended with a condition to the petitioner/accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the trial Court and also to execute bond and surety. The petitioner/accused has filed application seeking extension of time to comply the condition imposed in the said order. On 27.11.2023 it came to be allowed and time has been extended for a period of 15 days i.e. till 11.12.2023. The petitioner/accused had not complied the condition -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2458 CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025 HC-KAR imposed in the order dated 31.10.2023 till 11.12.2023. The appellate Court heard arguments on appeal as well as revision filed by the respondent/complainant and passed common judgment. In the common judgment one of the point raised for consideration is as under:
"Whether the appellant/accused is entitled to maintain the appeal despite his willful failure to comply the order of the court dated 31.10.2023?"
9. The appellate Court while answering the said point has noted the fact of petitioner not complying the condition imposed in the order dated 31.10.2023 even though time is extended till 11.12.2023 and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh Deswal (Supra) has held that there is no necessity to discuss the merits of the case as the appeal itself is not maintainable and answered point No.1 in negative. Consequently, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The said dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner is not on merits but for non-compliance of the condition imposed in the order dated 31.10.2023. Whether the appeal filed challenging the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act can be dismissed holding that it is not maintainable for non-compliance of the condition imposed while suspending the sentence to deposit 20% of the fine/cheque amount.
10. Section 148 of the N.I.Act reads thus:
148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent. of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court:
Provided that the amount payable under this sub- section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A.
(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2458 CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025 HC-KAR days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.
(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal:
Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.
11. The said Section 148 of the N.I.Act has been inserted by way of amendment by Act 20 of 2018 w.e.f. 1.9.2018. As per Section 148(1), an appeal by the drawer against the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. As per Section 148(2), the amount referred to in sub-section (1) has to be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.
12. In the case on hand the said condition to deposit 20% of cheque/fine amount has been imposed as a condition for suspension of sentence. In Surinder Singh Deswal (Supra) the apex Court has observed as under:
19. The High Court is right in its opinion that question No.2 as framed in Vivek Sahni's case was not correctly considered. When suspension of sentence by the trial court is granted on a condition, non- compliance of the condition has adverse effect on the continuance of suspension of sentence. The Court which has suspended the sentence on a condition, after noticing non-
compliance of the condition can very well hold that the suspension of sentence stands vacated due to non-
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:2458 CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025 HC-KAR compliance. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge declaring that due to non- compliance of condition of deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation, suspension of sentence stands vacated is well within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and no error has been committed by the Additional Sessions Judge in passing the order dated 20.07.2019.
20. It is for the Appellate Court who has granted suspension of sentence to take call on non-compliance and take appropriate decision. What order is to be passed by the Appellate Court in such circumstances is for the Appellate Court to consider and decide. However, non-compliance of the condition of suspension of sentence is sufficient to declare suspension of sentence as having been vacated.
13. As per the aforesaid judgment, the condition to deposit 25% of the amount of fine/compensation is not complied, then the Court can pass order vacating the order of suspension of sentence. Merely because of non- compliance of condition imposed while suspending the order of sentence by non-deposit of fine amount, the appeal filed by the drawer challenging the judgment of conviction cannot be dismissed only on that ground.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay D.Salvi vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2007) 5 SCC 741 has held as under:
3. It appears that two complaint cases were filed against the appellant. In both the cases, he was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment in each of the cases. In one case, the appellant was directed to pay fine of Rs 1,40,000 and in another Rs 1,45,000; in default, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Against the said orders, appeals were preferred before the Sessions Court which directed the appellant to deposit the amount of fine but as he failed to deposit the same, the appeals were dismissed. When the said order was challenged before the High Court in revision, similar order was passed on non-deposit of payment of fine and the revision applications have been dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
4. In our view, neither the appellate court nor was the Revisional Court right in dismissing the appeals -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2458 CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025 HC-KAR or revisions in the event of non-deposit of fine, but they should have disposed of the case on merits.
5. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate court to dispose of the appeals on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is directed that the trial court shall take all coercive steps for realisation of fine awarded by the trial court against the appellant.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others ((2023) 10 SCC
446) has held as under:
6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section
148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.
7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.
8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:2458 CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.
16. The Bombay High Court in the case of Adesh Prakashchand Jain (Borudiya) vs. Harish Punamchand Une and another (2020) SCC ONLINE BOM 96 relying on the decision of Vijay D.Salvi (supra) has set-aside the order of dismissal of appeal for default for non-payment of fine and ordered for restoration of the appeal to be decided on merits and as per law.
17. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of Rameshbhai Bhemabhai Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat and another (2025:GUJHC:15249) has set-aside the order of the Sessions Court dismissing the appeal of the drawer for default for non-deposit of 20% of the cheque amount and ordered for restoration of the appeal to be decided on merits.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 802) has held as under:
10. That a right of appeal is an invaluable right, particularly for an accused who cannot be condemned eternally by a trial judge, without having a right to seek a re-look of the Trial Court's judgment by a superior or appellate court. The right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused. This is because an accused has a right to not only challenge a judgment on its merits, namely, with respect to the conviction and sentence being imposed on him, but also on the procedural aspects of the trial. An accused can question procedural flaws, impropriety and lapses that may have been committed by the Trial Court in arriving at the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence in an appeal filed against the same. It then becomes the duty of the appellate court to consider the appeal from the perspective of the accused-appellant therein to see if he has a good case on merits, and to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and acquit the accused, or to remand the matter for a re-trial in accordance with law, or to reduce the sentence while -9- NC: 2026:KHC:2458 CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025 HC-KAR maintaining the conviction or, in the alternative, to dismiss the appeal.
19. In the case on hand, the petitioner has deposited fine amount of Rs.13,00,000/- through five demand drafts in the trial Court on 27.12.2023. There is an endorsement to that effect in the order sheet of C.C.No.4165/2019 dated 27.12.2023. The petitioner had also furnished surety in compliance of the order passed on I.A.1 in Crl.A.No.263/2023 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru. Even though the said compliance is not within the time granted by the appellate Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said compliance is made within 60 days from the date of order as provided under Section 148(2) of the N.I.Act. The petitioner has not brought to the notice of the appellate Court regarding compliance of the order dated 31.10.2023 passed on I.A.1. Considering the said aspect, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the matter requires to be remanded back to the appellate Court for deciding the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii) The judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.263/2023 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru is set-
aside.
iii) The matter is remanded to the appellate Court to decide Crl.A.No.263/2023 on merits and in accordance with law."
Since the matter is now disposed without issuing notice to the complainant, in the event complainant is aggrieved, he is at liberty to seek revival of the subject petition as the matter is
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2458 CRL.P No. 3197 of 2025 HC-KAR only following the earlier order in which the complainant had been represented.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER [I] The Criminal Petition is allowed.
[II] The judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed
in Crl.Rev.P.No.252/2023 by the VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru is set-aside.
[III] The matter is remanded to the appellate Court to decide Crl.Rev.P.No.252/2023 on merits and in accordance with law.
sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT:SS