Summons Case Statement Timing Does Not Vitiate Conviction

The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad, before Justice H.P. Sandesh, dismissed a criminal revision petition arising from a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The complainant’s case was straightforward. He alleged that the accused had borrowed Rs.2,50,000 and issued cheque No.405549 dated 01.03.2013 towards repayment. The cheque was dishonoured for “funds insufficient”. Statutory notice was issued and served on 02.03.2013, but there was no reply and no payment.

The trial court convicted the accused and imposed a fine of Rs.2,61,000, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. The appellate court confirmed that finding. In revision, the accused raised a fresh objection that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded before completion of prosecution evidence.

The High Court examined the procedure in a summons case and referred to Section 251 Cr.P.C. It noted that when the accused appears in a summons case, the substance of the accusation is to be stated to him, and he is to be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. The court found from the order sheet that the accused was present, the substance of accusation was stated, he pleaded not guilty, and he was given an opportunity to cross-examine PW1 and lead defence evidence.

On the procedural objection, the court held that the accused could not derive benefit from the timing issue, particularly when he had full opportunity to defend himself. The court also noted that the complainant’s evidence and documents were marked in the presence of the accused.

On merits, the court found no dispute about the issuance of the cheque, its dishonour, or service of notice. The accused had not replied to the notice and had led no rebuttal evidence. Relying on the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the principle in Rangappa v. Mohan, the court held that the complainant had proved the case and that no illegality or perversity was shown in the concurrent findings.

The revision petition was dismissed.

Practical takeaway: In a summons case under Section 138 NI Act, a technical objection about the timing of the accused’s statement will not help if the accused had notice, opportunity to defend, and led no rebuttal evidence.