- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21201 CRL.RP No. 438 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 438 OF 2024 BETWEEN: R DEVARAJA RAO CHOUHAN (MARATI DEVARAJ ) ER 08, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT E & F BLOCK RAMAKRISHNANAGAR MYSURU – 570 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KUMARA K G, ADVOCATE) AND: NARAYANAGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT No .37, 7TH CROSS LAKSHMI NILAYA, E AND F BLOCK, 5TH MAIN, R K NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 022. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R V AND LAW MENS CO., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.No.313/2023 DATED 12.02.2024 AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU IN C.C.No.1928/2016 DATED 09.08.2023 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21201 CRL.RP No. 438 of 2024 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.313/2023 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, wherein the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 09.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.1928/2016 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act” for brevity) has been affiremed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the respondent -complainant is that the respondent –complainant and the petitioner –accused are well known to each other. The petitioner –accused had - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21201 CRL.RP No. 438 of 2024 borrowed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs only) from the respondent –complainant on 27.02.2016 for meeting urgent financial need and house hold expenses and agreed to repay the said amount borrowed within two months. The petitioner in order repay the amount borrowed has issued cheque dated 05.05.2016 bearing No.035020 for Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs only) drawn on Corporation Bank, Nrupathunga Road, Mysuru. The said cheque has been presented for encashment and it came to be dishonoured for reason “Funds Insufficient” on 10.05.2016. The respondent -complainant got issued legal notice on 26.05.2016 and it came to be served on the petitioner –accused. The petitioner –accused has given his reply on 10.06.2016 and did not pay the cheque amount. Therefore, the respondent –complainant has filed complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 4. The respondent –complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 6. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21201 CRL.RP No. 438 of 2024 statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused has been examined himself as D.W.1 and not produced any documents. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides has convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The petitioner –accused has challenged the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.313/2023 and said appeal came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 5. In reply notice Ex.P6, the petitioner has taken up his defence that he has borrowed Rs.50,000/- (rupees Fifty thousand only) from the respondent –complainant and gave blank cheque as security. He has cleared loan amount of Rs.50,000/-(rupees Fifty thousand only) into two installments and the complainant has not returned the cheque given as security and misused the said cheque. There was no suggestion in that regard to P.W.1 in his cross examination. The petitioner –accused has been examined as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21201 CRL.RP No. 438 of 2024 D.W.1 and in his chief examination he has stated that his wife has borrowed money from the wife of the respondent – complainant and for that the petitioner has given cheque as security. D.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that he got mentioned the said aspect in his reply notice. The defence taken up by the petitioner –accused in his reply notice and in his chief examination are contradictory. The petitioner in his cross examination has admitted that he has not filed any police complaint against the respondent for misusing the cheque. D.W.1 in his cross examination has admitted that he has performed marriage of his daughter on 15.05.2016. The said aspect itself indicates that the petitioner was in need of money during year 2016 for marriage of his daughter. Considering the said aspect, the petitioner –accused has failed to establish his defence. The petitioner has failed to rebutt the presumption raised under Section 139 of the N.I Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of debt. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21201 CRL.RP No. 438 of 2024 5. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The Appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on record has rightly confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. There are no grounds to entertain this Criminal Revision Petition. 7. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38