- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 271 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. MANJUNATH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.61, NEAR SRI YELLAMMA TEMPLE CHIKKATHOGUR ELECTRONIC CITY POST BANGALORE-560 100. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILALGE K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 066. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.27/2020 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.5023/2017. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in C.C.No.5023/2017 on the file of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and confirming in Crl.A.No.27/2020. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court that there was a transaction between the complainant and respondent and it is also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 specific case of the complainant that the accused has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- as consideration amount by way of service charges from complainant since there was a mutual understanding between them. He Had paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on 04.10.2007 and thereafter he had issued two Cheques and another Cheque was also dishonored and hence case was filed. In respect of this Cheque also when the same was presented, the same was not honored and hence complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and this revision petitioner was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and hence the complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked the document Ex.P1 to Ex.P13(a) and the petitioner also examined himself as DW1. The Trial Court having considered the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record available on record, comes to the conclusion that there were transaction between them and specific pleading was also made that an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid but issued the Cheques and both the Cheques were - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 dishonored and in other Cheque for Rs.25,00,000/- and he was convicted and an appeal was filed and therein matter was settled, but in respect of this Cheque is concerned, no settlement was arrived between parties and hence Cheque was presented and the same was dishonored. Having considered the admission of issuance of Cheque, the same has not been denied and also filing of the case in C.C.No.2735/2008 wherein judgment delivered against this petitioner as well as joint memo filed in terms of Ex.P8 and also the admission on the part of DW1 that he had issued the subject matter of the Cheque and not paid the amount. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also ordered to pay an amount of Rs.15,10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.27/2020 and First Appellate Court also on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in paragraph No.30 comes to the conclusion that Cheque was issued towards legally recoverable debt i.e., service charge and the accused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 failed to prove his defence. Hence, comes to the conclusion that the material considered by the Trial Court is not perverse and having considered the material on record and not find any error in the order of the Trial Court and hence confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition is filed. 4. The counsel for the revision petitioner also submits that issuance of Cheque is not dispute and counsel would contend that there was an agreement between both of them and the said agreement was not placed before the Court wherein he has undertaken to solve the dispute between the parties and the same has not been done and hence not paid the amount. 5. The counsel also would vehemently contend that in the cross-examination categorically admitted the agreement as well as suits are filed before the Trial Court, but the Trial Court and First Appellate Court fails to take note of the particular such fact and committed an error and it requires an interference. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for respondent would vehemently contend that and there was transaction and agreement between them is not in dispute. The zerox copy of the agreement is produced before the Trial Court and the same has been considered by the Trial Court and mentioned the same in the order itself and original could not be filed in view of the cases pending before the Court. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court taken note of the admission on the part of DW1 with regard to the liability of Rs.65,00,000/- and also paid the part amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and subsequent to compromise the matter in respect of remaining Cheque of Rs.25,00,000/- and against this payment of Rs.15,00,000/- making submission that there was an undertaking to solve the dispute, but no such disputes records are placed before the Trial Court even though examined himself as DW1 and nothing marked before the Trial Court and hence, question of the contention of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 7. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent also and records are also before this Court and this Court also looked into the evidence of PW1 and DW1 and no dispute with regard to the fact that there was a transaction between the petitioner and respondent in terms of the agreement and made the part payment and now also counsel did not disputes the fact that an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid earlier and subsequently, dishonor of Cheque case was also filed wherein conviction was also passed against the petitioner. An appeal is filed and also in appeal joint memo was filed in terms of Ex.P8 and matter was settled. 8. The counsel appearing for petitioner also not disputes the issuance of the Cheque of this case but only contention that cases were pending and the same was not solved by the respondent and hence not liable to pay and if any such document are placed before the Court, even now also ready to pay the amount, but having considered the material on record, no such defence was taken before - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 the Trial Court except oral testimony of the revision petitioner who has been examined as DW1, no document is placed before the Court with regard to the very defence that the respondent/complainant respondent has agreed to solve the dispute. The Trial Court also taken note of the copy of the agreement was not placed, but at the time of passing the judgment, reference was also made that zerox copy is placed before the Court in paragraph No.10, 11 of the judgment. When such being the material on record, evidence of DW1 also very clear with regard to the issuance of the Cheque and admission also given in the chief evidence itself as well as in the cross-examination, he categorically admits that he gave three Cheques and with regard to one Cheque, matter was compromised in Sessions Court and the present Cheque is 3rd Cheque and also categorically admits that with regard to the cases which are pending is concerned, he is not having any difficulty to produce the certified copies and also though he undertaken to produce the certified copies before the Trial Court, no produced any document and also when the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 question was put to him, no difficulty to make the payment in respect of 3rd Cheque is concerned, but contend that he has not received the amount and not a case of receipt of the amount, the Cheque was given with regard to the liability in terms of the agreement entered between the petitioner and respondent and not disputed the issuance of subject matter of the Cheque and when such Cheque was issued and not disputed the issuance of the Cheque. 9. 9. The Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court drawn presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. The revision petitioner ought to have rebutted the same by leading the cogent and plausible evidence. When there is a clear admission on the part of PW1 that he had issued the Cheque that too payment of Rs.65,00,000/- and two payments are already made and one payment is subsequent to the conviction when the appeal was filed and the same is compromised and joint memo was filed and when the petitioner admitted the issuance of Cheque and honored the other payment and only with regard to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 this transaction is concerned, it appears that there are cases are pending and in fact pendency of cases also nothing is placed on record before the Trial Court when he was examined as DW1 and I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the petitioner and the same is also on material on record since, he has admitted the issuance of the Cheque. There is no any plausible defence with regard to the contention that disputes are not settled and no such material also placed before the Court. Even though counsel appearing for the petitioner makes the submission before this Court that if other cases are withdrawn he is ready to pay the amount, but with regard to the pendency of cases is concerned also no details of documents are placed before the Court along with this revision petition and also not placed any such document. When such being the material on record, I do not find any error in the finding of the Trial Court and also in the First Appellate Court. This Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction only having limited scope if consideration of materials and reasons not legal and if - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4732 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021 orders suffers from any legality and correctness then only Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and such circumstances is not warranted in the case on hand. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31