- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:115 CRL.RP No. 1489 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1489 OF 2016 BETWEEN: C SURESH S/O CHIKKA MANCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.2177, 3RD CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.L. SREENIVAS, DVOCATE) AND: V SHYLENDRA S/O C VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.2313, CH-40, 11TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SAMPAT ANANDA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.244/2015 ON 23.08.2016 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:115 CRL.RP No. 1489 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court wherein the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,61,000/- and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the State out of the fine amount of Rs.1,61,000/. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the order of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that there is no error in the order passed by the Trial Court. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the cheque amount is Rs.1,50,000/- and the counsel not disputes the fact of issuance of cheque and also dishonour of said cheque and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:115 CRL.RP No. 1489 of 2016 also issuance of legal notice. The counsel submits that the said cheque was issued only as a security and further submits that when the amount was paid to him to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, the same was not shown in the income tax returns and both the Courts have failed to consider the said fact and committed an error in convicting the petitioner. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the scope of revision is very limited. When the petitioner took the specific defence before the Trial Court that the cheque was issued for security purpose, not led any rebuttal evidence to rebut the evidence of respondent. The specific case of the respondent that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for his financial constrains and towards discharge of the said loan amount, the petitioner had issued a subject matter of the cheque and the same was dishonoured and thereafter legal notice was issued and inspite of receipt of said notice, the petitioner neither - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:115 CRL.RP No. 1489 of 2016 paid the loan amount nor replied to the said notice. Hence, the Trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner and hence, it does not require any interference by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction considering the material available on record? 2. What order? Point No.1 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of cheque. The only contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said cheque was issued only for security. The specific contention of the respondent is that the petitioner - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:115 CRL.RP No. 1489 of 2016 had requested him to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for his financial constrains and after receipt of the said amount, he had issued the said cheque for discharge of the said loan amount but the said cheque got dishonoured. The fact is that the dishonour of cheque was intimated to the petitioner but he did not made any efforts to repay the said amount and in this regard the respondent had issued a legal notice but the petitioner did not reply to the said legal notice and hence, the case has been registered against the petitioner. 7. Even though, the petitioner took the specific defence that the cheque was issued as a security, not led any evidence to rebut the case of the respondent. When issuance of cheque is not disputed; when legal notice was issued and not replied; when not led any rebuttal evidence, there is a presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Unless the evidence of complainant is not rebutted placing any material, the question of interfering with the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:115 CRL.RP No. 1489 of 2016 Court does not arise. The very contention of the counsel for the petitioner that payment of Rs.1,50,000/- was not disclosed in the income tax returns and the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding of both the Courts. On perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that the petitioner has not placed any material to discard the evidence of the respondent. Hence, no grounds are made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, I answer the above point as negative. Point No.2 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN