- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6401 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 80 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI V. GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O VARADAN, R/AT HANUMANTHANAGAR, SRINGERI TOWN, SRINGERI-577139. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI CHANDRAHAS GANAPATHI RAYKAR S/O GANAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT SHARADHA NAGAR, SRINGERI TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577139. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NISHAD S.A., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.157/2019 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 11.06.2019 IN C.C.NO.7/2017 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRINGERI. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6401 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the Trial Court that accused having a good friendship with the complainant since several years and complainant approached him for a financial assistance for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of hand loan in the 3rd week of June -2016 and he has paid the same and agreed to repay the same within 3 months, but he did not repay the same and on demand, he gave a post dated Cheque dated 24.09.2016 and on presentation of the same, it was dishonored and legal notice was issued and inspite of the notice given, the accused not paid the amount and also not given the reply. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6401 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2021 Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and hence, complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and revision petitioner not lead any defense evidence. The Trial Court considering the oral evidence and Ex.P1–Cheque, Ex.P3-legal notice and Ex.P5- postal acknowledgment, comes to the conclusion that no reply was given and also not rebutted the case of the complainant under Section 139 of N.I Act and convicted the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.157/2019. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, accepted the case of the complainant and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the orders, present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6401 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2021 4. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts disregarded the defense of the accused and even though he was cross examined and answers are elicited and the same has not been considered by both the Courts and committed an error in drawing presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act. 5. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for respondent would vehemently contend that the transaction was taken place in the year 2013 and almost a decade has been elapsed and even though the case was filed in the year 2017, the respondent could not able to get the money and also no defense evidence was lead before the Trial Court. Hence, it does not requires any interference. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent, no rebuttal evidence before the Trial Court and no doubt the law is settled that even without entering into the witness box, the accused/revision petitioner can rebut the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6401 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2021 evidence of complainant, but no such answer is elicited from the mouth of the PW1 and Ex.P1-Cheque is admitted and notice was also issued to the petitioner and no reply was given. When no rebuttal evidence, unless the accused makes out any preponderance of probabilities with regard to the defense is concerned, question of interfering does not arise by exercising the revisional jurisdiction and no merit in the petition. 7. At this juncture, the counsel for revision petitioner seeks three months time to make the payment. Having taken note of the matter was of the year 2013, more than a decade has been elapsed and now question of granting 3 weeks time to make payment of remaining amount does not arise. However, counsel submits that 50% of the amount has been paid and remaining amount will be paid within three months. 8. The counsel for respondent opposes the said submission and contend that this complainant is running - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6401 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2021 before the different Courts for recovery of the amount and no such time could be granted. 9. Having heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel for respondent, it is appropriate to grant six weeks time to make the payment of remaining amount. If payment is not made within six weeks, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months as ordered by the Trial Court in C.C.No.7/2017 dated 11.06.2019. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31