- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1028 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SANNASWAMY S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT FIRST FLOOR, LAKSHMI NILAYA KUVEMPU NAGARA MIG-1-86-A HASSAN-573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T, ADVOCATE) AND: SRIDHAR S/O SHIVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NAVEEN DRY CLEANER B.M. ROAD HASSAN-573 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR K.N, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.244/2019 AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN C.C.NO.6045/2015 AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGE AGAINST HIM. Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 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 has assailed the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.244/2019 dated 30.04.2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed in C.C.No.6045/2015 dated 31.07.2019 by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The abridged facts of the case are that that: The complainant and the accused are the relatives and are well acquainted with each other. In the month of December, 2014, the accused approached the complainant for financial help and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 complainant as hand loan for his domestic necessities assuring to repay the same within two months. For repayment of the said loan amount, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.061874 dated 06.02.2015 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Hassan Branch. The said cheque was presented by the complainant through his banker for encashment, however, the same was returned with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds' on 07.02.2015. The said aspect was informed by the complainant to the accused, despite he failed to repay the same. As such, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 19.02.2015, calling upon him to repay the cheque amount. Though the said notice served to the accused, neither he replied to the legal notice nor repaid the loan amount. As such, the complainant filed the private complaint before the trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act'). 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. However the accused examined himself as DW.1. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 5. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the trial Court, the trial Court passed the judgment by convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,26,000/-, in default of payment of fine, directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. On recovery of fine amount, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- to the complainant as compensation and remaining fine amount of Rs.2,000/- defrayed to the State for the expenses incurred in the prosecution. 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the accused preferred the criminal appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.244/2019. On reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence and documents on record, the learned Session Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel, Sri T. Vijay Kumar, for the revision petitioner and learned counsel, Sri K.N.Shashidhar, for the respondent. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while passing the impugned judgment by convicting the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in the right perspective. He further contended that the defence of the accused has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The specific case of the accused is that he being the relative of the complainant, the complainant used to visit his house, thereby the complainant had stolen the cheque-Ex.P1 from his house and presented the same for unlawful gain. Further it is contended that the legal notice issued by the complainant is also not served to the accused. In such circumstances, the mandatory statutory requirement does not complied. With these grounds, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant contended that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence and documents available on record, passed well reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference at - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 the hands of this Court. He further contended that the accused failed to rebut the initial presumption arising under the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act by placing cogent evidence. It is further contended that the legal notice has been served to the accused as per postal reciept-Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Though the defence of the accused is that the complainant had stolen the cheque in question from the accused, the same is not proved by placing reliable evidence. Even otherwise, the accused has failed to lodge any complaint to that effect. Accordingly, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the documents, the sole point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal in Crl.A.No.244/2019 dated 30.04.2022 thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.6045/2015 dated 31.07.2019? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 11. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also carefully perused the entire materials on record placed before me. 12. It could be gathered from the records, Ex.P1-the cheque in question and the signature of the accused on Ex.P1, are not seriously disputed by the accused. The specific defence raised by the accused is that he being the relative of the complainant, the cheque-Ex.P1 was stolen by the complainant. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, there is no such complaint lodged by the accused to that effect. Further though it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that Ex.P3-the legal notice was not served to the accused, the postal receipt as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 clearly depict that the said notice was served to the accused and the accused also not disputed his residence at the relevant point of time. Admittedly, there is no reply notice issued by the accused. No doubt, the initial presumption arises under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, it is settled position of law that such defence of the accused must be a probable one with cogent - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 evidence. In the case on hand the accused has failed to rebut the initial presumption by placing a probable defence. In such circumstances, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly passed the reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 13. In that view of the matter, this revision petition lacks merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Revision petition is dismissed; ii) The order of the sentence passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan in C.C.No.6045/2015 dated 31.07.2019, which was confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.244/2019 dated 30.04.2022, is hereby upheld. iii) Three months time is granted to the revision petitioner/accused to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court (including the amount already deposited by the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17921 CRL.RP No. 1028 of 2022 accused) from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. iv) The complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited by the accused on due identification. v) Registry is directed to send back the records to the concerned Court along with certified copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11