- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17473 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 829 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. PANCHAKSHARI GOWDA S/O JAVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. HULIKAL VILLAGE DABBEGHATTA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 227 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M.N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. JAGADEESH D.T. S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. OPPOSITE MASZID ROAD TURUVEKERE TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 227 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVASA M.G., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.07.2020 PASSED IN CRL.A.No.10025/2018 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT TIPTUR AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TURUVEKERE IN C.C.No.410/2016 DATED 20.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17473 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this revision petition, the petitioner assailed the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.10025/2018 dated 04.07.2020 by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for short), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.410/2016 dated 20.07.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short). 2. The Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The accused and complainant are known to each other and in the year 2016, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant. To repay the said amount, the accused issued a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17473 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2021 cheque bearing No.551419 dated 03.05.2016 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere Branch for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. On instructions, the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment through his Bank, however, the said cheque returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The said aspect was intimated by the complainant to the accused by issuing a legal notice through his counsel. The said notice was served to the accused on 12.05.2016, despite the same accused failed to repay the hand loan. As such, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.PC for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act'). 4. To prove the case before the Trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. However, the accused also examined himself as DW1. 5. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused and passed the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17473 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2021 "ORDER Acting Under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. The accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months. Further Acting under Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code the accused is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,55,000-00(Rupees one lakh fifty five thousands only). If the compensation amount is deposited in the Court, pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000-00(Rupees one lakh fifty thousands only) to the complainant as compensation amount and remaining Rs.5,000-00(Rupees Five thousands Only) to the State Exchequer as fine amount." 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10025/2018, wherein the First Appellate Court, after re-assessment of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17473 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2021 7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in a right perspective. He contended that the accused and the complainant being intimate friends, the complainant misused the cheque-Ex.P1 and presented the same for unlawful gain. He also contended that the complainant totally failed to prove his lending capacity of Rs.1,50,000/-. These aspects were not properly appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, by supporting the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, contended that the both the Courts below, after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed well reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17473 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2021 contended that the accused failed to rebut the initial presumption arising under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act by placing cogent evidence. In such circumstances, both the Courts below rightly convicted the accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the entire evidence and documents placed before me. 11. It could be gathered from records, the cheque in question-Ex.P1 and signature of the accused on it is not seriously disputed by the accused. The defence raised by the accused is that the complainant has misused the cheque since they both are intimate friends. It is the case of the accused that the complainant has presented the cheque for unlawful gain. Though the accused examined himself as DW1, he failed to place any such evidence on record or document to prove the aspect that the complainant has misused the cheque in question for unlawful gain. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17473 CRL.RP No. 829 of 2021 12. No doubt, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act is a rebuttal one. However, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments, to rebut the initial presumption, the accused has to come up with a probable defence with reliable documents. In the instant case, there is no such probable defence placed by the accused. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly passed the judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the revision petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14