Bombay High Court
Vishnu Dattu KhuleversusState of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Summary
The accused, Visnu Dattu Khule, obtained a loan of Rs.50 lakh from a bank and issued a cheque for Rs.12 lakh which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The bank served a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and upon non‑payment, filed a complaint leading to the accused’s conviction and a sentence of one year imprisonment, a fine, and compensation of Rs.24 lakh under Cr.P.C. Section 357(3). The accused appealed the conviction to the Sessions Court, which dismissed the appeal, prompting a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the dishonoured cheque, the notice, and the applicant’s signature, and found it reliable and trustworthy. It held that there was no perversity or error in the trial and appellate courts’ findings. Consequently, the revision and any interim relief were rejected, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence presented establishes the dishonour of the cheque and the applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Whether the trial court’s conviction and sentencing, including the award of compensation under Cr.P.C. Section 357(3), were perverse or erroneous.
- Whether the revision petition raises any substantial question of law or fact warranting interference.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 357(3)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- cheque bounce
- criminal conviction
- revision petition
- compensation under CrPC
- insufficient funds
- banking dispute
Judgment
905-REVN-380-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 380 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3679 OF 2025
Visnu Dattu Khule … Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Through Public Prosecutor … Respondents
___________
Adv. Onkar Ghatage a/w Rushikesh More i/b Vinay Kadam, for the
applicant.
Mr. Shrikant yadav, APP for the respondent – State.
Adv. D. Patil, for the respondent no. 2.
___________
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 21 AUGUST 2026
P. C. :
1. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed by
the original accused in the proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 challenging the order of conviction
passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
2. It is the case of the respondent-bank that they had given a loan
of Rs.50,00,000/- in the year 2013 to the accused and there was an
outstanding amount. The accused issued a cheque of Rs.
12,00,000/-. The said cheque, on being presented to the bank, was
dishonored. Hence, a notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was
Rushi 1 of 3
905-REVN-380-25.doc
issued demanding the amount of the cheque. That notice was duly
served. However, as the accused failed to pay the amount demanded,
a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed. In the said
complaint, the bank examined their officer as its witness. The
accused did not step into the witness box.
3. Considering the evidence on record and the documents, the
Trial Court convicted the accused for offense punishable under
Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to suffer simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default
of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment of three months.
The accused was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 24 lakhs to
the complainant vide Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C.
4. The said order passed by the Trial Court was challenged before
the Sessions Judge by the accused. The Sessions Court, after hearing
the parties, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the present Criminal
Revision Application has been filed by the accused challenging the
order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
5. After going through the evidence led before the Trial Court, I
find it reliable and trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve
the said evidence. The subject cheque is on record, which has been
dishonored for the reason “insufficient fund”. The said cheque has
been duly signed by the present applicant. Thereafter, a statutory
Rushi 2 of 3
905-REVN-380-25.doc
notice under Section 138 of NI Act has been issued by the bank. The
Registry A.D. card has been duly received by the applicant, along
with the signature of the applicant, showing therein receipt of the
notice and the same is on record.
6. Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court have held against the applicant- complainant. I do
no find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision
Application stands rejected.
7. In sequel, the interim application, if any, also stands rejected.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
Rushi 3 of 3
Checking your session…