A. Lakshmana vs K.Pradeepa — 190/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.
CRL.A - CRIMINAL MISC APPEAL CASES
CNR: KADG010030042025
Filing Number
190/2025
Filing Date
23-09-2025
Registration No
190/2025
Registration Date
23-09-2025
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, DAVANGERE
Judge
890-II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANGERE
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
A. Lakshmana
Adv. L UMAPATHI
Respondent(s)
K.Pradeepa
Hearing History
Judge: 890-II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANGERE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL
ARGUMENTS CRIMINAL
ARGUMENTS CRIMINAL
ARGUMENTS CRIMINAL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL |
| 25-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS CRIMINAL |
| 18-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS CRIMINAL |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS CRIMINAL |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: A. Lakshmana v. K. Pradeepa (Crl.Appeal 190/2025) The appellate court dismissed A. Lakshmana's appeal against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Lakshmana had borrowed ₹4,50,000 from K. Pradeepa in August 2021 and issued a post-dated cheque, which was dishonored for insufficient funds in November 2021; despite a statutory notice, he failed to repay, leading to prosecution. The court rejected his defenses—that no transaction occurred, the signature wasn't his, and the complainant lacked financial capacity—finding them unsubstantiated and contradicted by his own admissions during cross-examination. The conviction and ₹4,80,000 fine (with six months imprisonment as default) were confirmed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: A. Lakshmana v. K. Pradeepa (Crl.Appeal 190/2025) The appellate court dismissed A. Lakshmana's appeal against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Lakshmana had borrowed ₹4,50,000 from K. Pradeepa in August 2021 and issued a post-dated cheque, which was dishonored for insufficient funds in November 2021; despite a statutory notice, he failed to repay, leading to prosecution. The court rejected his defenses—that no transaction occurred, the signature wasn't his, and the complainant lacked financial capacity—finding them unsubstantiated and contradicted by his own admissions during cross-examination. The conviction and ₹4,80,000 fine (with six months imprisonment as default) were confirmed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts