- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22031 CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1195 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI MARIYAPPA ALIAS M.B.MARIGOWDA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA CONTRACTOR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT No.604/2 VINAYAKA BADAVANE K.R.NAGAR TOWN MYSURU – 571 602 …PETITIONER (BY SRI VASUDEV G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: K M VISHWANATH S/O M.S.MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT BASAVESHWARA BLOCK, K.R.NAGAR TOWN, MYSURU - 571 602 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B M AKANDESWARA.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.197/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22031 CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016 CONVICTION DATED 18.09.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGAR IN C.C.NO.1028/2013 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 27.07.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.197/2015 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru wherein the judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.1028/2013 dated 18.09.2015 by the Principal Civil and Sessions Judge and JMFC, K.R. Nagar, 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 affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The case of the respondent –complainant was that the petitioner –accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22031 CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016 10.11.2012 agreeing to repay the same within a period of three months. In order to repay the said amount borrowed, the petitioner –accused has issued a post-dated cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) bearing No.532851 dated 20.02.2013 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., K.R.Nagar in favour of the respondent –complainant. The said cheque presented for encashment on 22.02.2013 and said cheque came to be dishonoured for reason “funds insufficient”. The respondent –complainant got issued legal notice dated 26.02.2013 calling upon the petitioner –accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days. The said notice has been returned with postal shara “not claimed”. As the petitioner –accused has not paid the cheque amount, the respondent –complainant has initiated the proceedings against the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 4. The respondent –accused has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 4. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22031 CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016 petitioner –accused did not choose to cross examine P.W.1. The statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has not lead any defence evidence. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both side has convicted the petitioner – accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. The judgment of conviction has been challenged by the petitioner –accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.197/2015. The said appeal came to be dismissed on merits. The said judgment is challenged in this Criminal Revision Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner -accused has not been given opportunity to cross examine P.W.1. 6. Having heard learned counsel this Court has perused impugned judgments and trial Court records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22031 CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016 7. On perusal of order sheet of the trial Court, evidence of P.W.1 has been recorded on 25.02.2015 and case has been adjourned to 06.04.2015 for cross examination of P.W.1. Subsequently, the case came to be adjourned 26.05.2015, 20.06.2015 and 24.07.2015 for cross examination of P.W.1. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, the petitioner –accused has not choosen to cross examine P.W.1. Therefore, considering the said aspect, it cannot be said that the petitioner –accused has not been given sufficient opportunity for cross examination of P.W.1. 8. In the appeal, when it was pending, the compromise petition has been filed under Section 147 of the N.I Act and it has been jointly signed by the petitioner –accused and the respondent. As per said compromise petition, the matter has been settled for Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and amount of deposit made by the petitioner –accused before the trial Court in sum of Rs.75,000/- (rupees Seventy Five - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22031 CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016 Thousand only) has to be withdrawn by the respondent and remaining balance of Rs.75,000/-(rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) has to be paid by the petitioner –accused on or before 30.06.2016. The said compromise petition has been filed on 21.03.2016. Thereafter, the Appellate Court has granted time to the petitioner –accused for making payment of balance amount as agreed in the compromise petition. On 30.06.2016, the petitioner – accused has not complied terms and conditions of compromise petition by paying balance amount of Rs.75,000/- and hence, the Appellate Court has proceeded to hear arguments on both side and passed the impugned judgment. Even though, the petitioner –accused has settled the matter with the respondent –complainant has not complied terms and conditions of compromise petition which requires payment of balance amount of Rs.75,000/- on or before 30.06.2016. Nine years have been elapsed from the said date, even till date the petitioner has not paid the said amount. As there is no cross examination of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22031 CRL.RP No. 1195 of 2016 P.W.1, the trial Court has rightly drawn presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act and rightly convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The Appellate Court re-appreciating evidence on record and also considering that the petitioner –accused has not complied terms and conditions of compromise petition has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. There are no grounds for allowing this Criminal Revision Petition. 9. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42