- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14889 CRL.RP No. 1434 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1434 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. S.N MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O NANJAPPA R/AT SADENAHALLI VILLAGE ARADESHANAHALLI POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A.V, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH ADDL TALUK BENGALURU-560 064 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION ORDER DATED 30.06.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.18465/2014 BY THE LEARNED XVIII ACMM, BENGALURU AND CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.1055/2017 DATED 28.09.2021 BY THE LEARNED LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62). Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14889 CRL.RP No. 1434 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 Though the matter was listed for Admission, at the consent of both the learned counsels, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. In this revision petition, the revision petitioner/accused has assailed the judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Court of LXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62) (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.1055/2017, whereby the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short 'the trial Court') in C.C.No.18465/2014 dated 30.06.2017. 3. Parties are referred to as per ranking before the trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14889 CRL.RP No. 1434 of 2021 4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The accused and the complainant are known to each other and they are intimate friends. The accused is running a agency of chit in his residence and the complaint also participated in the said chit and bidded in two chits. As against the same, the accused issued two cheques bearing No.498107 dated 15.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.55,000/- and another bearing No.498103 dated 17.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-. When the complainant presented the said cheques, the same returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. The same was intimated to the accused by the complainant by issuing a legal notice dated 26.05.2014. The said notice was duly served to the accused. Despite, the accused failed to reply to the notice or to repay the said amount. Hence, the complainant filed the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the NI Act') before the trial court. 5. In order to prove the case before the trial court, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 9 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14889 CRL.RP No. 1434 of 2021 documents as Ex.P1 to P9. The accused also examined himself as DW.1. 6. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as under: "ORDER Acting under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C, accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. He is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,20,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) and also shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (Six) months and in default of payment of amount shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (Three) months. Acting under Section 357 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C, out of the fine amount the complainant is entitled for Rs.2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) cheque amount as compensation. Acting under Section 357 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C, the balance fine amount shall be deposited in State exchequer." 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused approached the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1055/2017. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessment of the entire evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the accused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14889 CRL.RP No. 1434 of 2021 by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 8. I have heard Raghavendra A.V., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A.C. Balaraj, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused without appreciating the evidence in right perspective. He further contended that the complainant has failed to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt of Rs.2,60,000/- by the accused. Further, the trial Court also failed to appreciate the probable defence put forth by the accused. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that, even after receiving the legal notice, the accused failed to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14889 CRL.RP No. 1434 of 2021 reply the same and the defence put forth by the accused is not probable one to rebut the initial presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act by placing reliable documents. He also contended that the evidence of PW.1 categorically established the legally recoverable debt owed to the complainant by the accused. In such circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties so also on perusal of the entire materials on record, it could be gathered that the issuance of the cheques in question and the signature of the accused on the said cheques are not in dispute. The defence of the accused is that the complainant has no lending capacity i.e., a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-. However, on perusal of the complaint averments it is established that the complainant was engaged in chit business and the accused after bidding the chit for its repayment he issued the cheques in question. No doubt, the intital presumption arising under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttal one. However, such presumption can be rebutted solely by probable defence coupled with documents. In the case on hand, there is no such - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14889 CRL.RP No. 1434 of 2021 documents or probable defence placed by the accused. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly held the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Albeit, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is exorbitant, as the cheque amount is of Rs.2,60,000/- and the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is of Rs.5,20,000/-. Further, the trial Court ordered that, out of the fine amount, Rs.2,60,000/- shall be paid to the complainant and rest of the amount to be submitted to the State Treasury. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accused had already deposited Rs.1,95,000/- before the trial Court as per the interim order passed by this Court and he had also paid the balance sum of Rs.65,000/- by way of cash to the respondent/complainant today. In such circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii) The sentence imposed by the trial Court, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court is hereby modified and the revision - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14889 CRL.RP No. 1434 of 2021 petitioner/accused sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,60,000/- (which is already paid by the revision petitioner/accused) to the complainant. iii) The respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the fine amount deposited by the revision petitioner/accused before the trial Court, on due identification. iv) The Registry is directed to send the trial Court records along with the copy of this order to the concerned Court, forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8