When Accused Dodges the Trial Process —Non-Recording of Section 313 CrPC Statement Not Fatal : Karnataka High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case

Justice Is Not a Hostage to Procedural Evasion - Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite the petitioner’s challenge that his statement under Section 313 CrPC was not recorded, the Court found no reason to interfere, citing his deliberate non-cooperation, repeated defaults, and misuse of procedural safeguards.

Justice H.P. Sandesh dismissed the revision petition with a strong observation: “Justice is not a hostage to procedural evasion. Law empowers the diligent—not the disobedient.”

“Cheque Bounced, Legal Notice Ignored, Trial Avoided—Yet the Accused Seeks Benefit of Process He Himself Defeated”

The case revolved around a loan of ₹6,00,000 allegedly taken by Sunil Yadav from the complainant in 2015. A cheque issued in March 2017 bounced with the endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’. After no response to the legal notice, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 NI Act.

The trial revealed that the accused had been granted multiple chances to defend himself. He failed to cross-examine the complainant despite being given opportunities. Though the Court allowed a belated application under Section 311 CrPC for cross-examination, the accused neither paid the costs nor followed through.

As the Court recorded: “The accused was given opportunity to cross-examine, but he did not choose to do so. Even after the Court's indulgence, he failed to comply with basic procedural requirements.”

His failure to request the recording of his Section 313 CrPC statement also drew criticism: “When a fair opportunity is given and the accused himself abstains, he cannot later turn around and claim prejudice.”

“Recording 313 CrPC Is Mandatory—But When Accused Evades the Court, It Can Be Dispensed With”

The petitioner’s main grievance was that the trial court had proceeded to convict him without recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC. However, the High Court clarified that this right, while crucial, is not absolute when the accused is persistently non-cooperative.

Justice Sandesh drew distinction from the case of G.H. Abdul Kadri v. Mohammed Iqbal, where remand was ordered due to lack of effort to secure the accused. He held: “This is not a case where the accused was absconding and the court was negligent. Here, he appeared, got bail, and still defaulted. The blame lies with him.”

The Court upheld the discretion of the Magistrate, stating: “When the accused consistently avoids the trial and fails to cross-examine or lead defence evidence, the Magistrate cannot be faulted for proceeding with the matter.”

“Cheque Dishonour Cases Are Quasi-Criminal—They Demand Prompt Redress, Not Endless Procedural Loops”

The High Court reaffirmed the object of the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially post-amendments that stress speedy resolution of disputes involving dishonoured cheques. Referring to the Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers ruling of the Supreme Court, it reiterated: “The NI Act aims to uphold commercial honesty and penalise financial default swiftly. Delay tactics go against the grain of the law.”

Justice Sandesh emphasized that procedural leniency must not become a shield for the wilfully non-compliant: “Speedy trial does not mean skipping essential stages—but it also does not mean being held ransom to an accused’s avoidance strategy.”

“Magistrate Acted Well Within His Powers—Petitioner’s Conduct Leaves No Room for Remand or Leniency”

Ultimately, the Court found that the trial court and appellate court had rightly concluded guilt. The petitioner neither rebutted the presumption under Section 139 NI Act, nor led any evidence or even made a proper defence.

The Court decisively held: “The petitioner chose not to examine himself or any witness. He allowed the prosecution case to go unrebutted. Conviction is the natural consequence.”

The revision petition was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence—fine of ₹7.60 lakhs—were confirmed.

This judgment affirms that procedural rights, including examination under Section 313 CrPC, are not designed to serve as escape hatches for uncooperative or evasive accused persons. The Karnataka High Court’s clear message is that accused cannot default at every stage and then demand relief on the ground of technical non-compliance.

As summed up by the Bench: “Courts are duty-bound to deliver justice—but not to indulge tactical abuse of process.”

Date of Decision: 07 February 2025