- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14048 CRL.RP No. 1233 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1233 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI B.H SRIDHAR S/O HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O BANAVARA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUDHARSHAN L, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI JAYANTHILAL S/O LATE S MISRIMAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O DEEPA TEXTILES, HULYUR ROAD, BANAVARA TOWN, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN C.C.NO.39/2014 DATED 09.07.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARSIKERE AND IN CRL.A.NO.188/2018 DATED 26.07.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14048 CRL.RP No. 1233 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 This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.188/2018 dated 26.07.2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence passed in C.C.No.39/2014 dated 09.07.2018 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court 3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that: The revision petitioner/accused and the complainant/respondent are known to each other since several years. On 26.05.2013, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a hand loan of Rs.90,000/- and agreed to repay the same within one month. Thereafter, he - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14048 CRL.RP No. 1233 of 2022 failed to repay the said amount. As such, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.765174 dated 29.06.2013 drawn on Syndicate Bank of Mysore, Banavara Branch, Arasikere, in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment, however, the same was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The said aspect was informed by the complainant to the accused through legal notice dated 26.07.2013 calling upon him to repay the cheque amount. Though the said notice served to the accused, neither he replied to the legal notice nor he 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 got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. However, the respondent/accused did not examine any witnesses on his behalf and got marked 2 documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14048 CRL.RP No. 1233 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 NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also pay a fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the accused preferred the criminal appeal before the learned Session Judge in Crl.A.No.188/2018. On reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence and documents on record, learned Session Judge partly allowed the criminal appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence passed by the trial Court by directing the accused to pay fine amount of Rs.95,000/- as compensation. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel, Smt. Rakshitha D.S., for Sri Sudharshan L., learned counsel for the revision - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14048 CRL.RP No. 1233 of 2022 petitioner and Sri. Vijaya Kumar K., learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the complainant has forcibly obtained the cheque in question and presented the same for unlawful gain. He further contended that the trial Court and the Session Court grossly erred while passing the impugned judgments by convicting the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in the right perspective. He additionally contended that the complainant has failed to prove his lending capacity of Rs.90,000/- . In such circumstances, both the trial Court and the Session Court erred in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that both the trial Court and the Session Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence and documents available on record, passed well reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He would further contend that the accused failed to place any probable defence by placing cogent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14048 CRL.RP No. 1233 of 2022 evidence. Though the defence of the accused is that the complainant has forcibly obtained 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 Session Court rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. As could be gathered from the records which are supplied by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, the issuance of Ex.P1-the signed cheque issued by the accused to the complainant is not seriously disputed by the accused/revision petitioner. However, it is the specific case of the accused that the complainant has forcibly obtained the same. Admittedly, there is no such complaint lodged by the accused to substantiate the said defence. Nevertheless, the accused has also failed to reply to the notice issued by the complainant despite receiving the same. The complainant is in the textile business, the lending capacity of Rs.90,000/- also proved in his evidence. No doubt, the initial presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14048 CRL.RP No. 1233 of 2022 a rebuttable presumption. However, such presumption can be rebutted only by placing a probable defence. In the case on hand the accused failed to rebut the initial presumption by placing a probable defence. In such circumstances, both the trial Court and the Session Court rightly passed the reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference. 11. In that view of the matter, this revision petition lacks merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18