- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34367 CRL.RP No. 1162 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1162 OF 2018 BETWEEN: LAXMAN, S/O LATE JAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O LAXMIPURA VILLAGE, NAGANAHALLI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 577212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PARAMESWARAIAH D C, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: M KRISHNA, S/O MARISWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O LAXMIPURA VILLAGE, NAGANAHALLI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 577212. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI H T JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.105/2018 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2018 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.(III COURT), MYSURU IN C.C.NO.575/2015 AND FURTHER ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34367 CRL.RP No. 1162 of 2018 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/- on account of dishonour of cheque for Rs.50,000/-. In default, the petitioner is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, the present petition. 3. The Complainant claims that the transaction is a hand loan between the complainant and the accused. It is further stated that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- with an assurance that he would repay the amount with 2% interest. Complainant demanded cheque dated 04.03.2013 issued for Rs.50,000/- and same was dishonoured and the complainant issued a notice on 28.03.2013. The notice returned with an endorsement that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34367 CRL.RP No. 1162 of 2018 the accused is not in station. Hence, the complaint is filed on 05.01.2015. 4. The accused contested the matter. The complainant led evidence and he was cross-examined. The accused did not lead any evidence. 5. The signature on the cheque is not in dispute. The accused took a contention that notice is not duly served and his father's name is wrongly mentioned. The accused has disputed the loan transaction. 6. The Trial Court has noticed that the cheque is issued in respect of the account maintained by the accused and the signature of the accused on the cheque is not in dispute. 7. The presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is in favour of the complainant and against the accused and it is to be presumed that the cheque is issued in discharge in discharge of legally enforceable debt unless rebutted. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34367 CRL.RP No. 1162 of 2018 8. The petitioner/accused tried to raise a contention that there was no transaction and the complainant had no capacity to pay the amount. Same is not established given the fact that the amount in question is only Rs.50,000/- and presumption in favour of the complainant is not rebutted by leading acceptable evidence. 9. Trial Court and Appellate Court have concurrently held that the transaction is established and the presumption is not rebutted. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that penalty of sentence of imprisonment of one year is too harsh given the fact that the amount involved is only Rs.50,000/-. This Court finds merit in the said contention. 11. It is also noticed though the cheque is for Rs.50,000/- the Trial Court has imposed penalty of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34367 CRL.RP No. 1162 of 2018 complainant. The complainant has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of fine or sentence. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the sentence of one year imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court has to be reduced to three months imprisonment, in case of default on the part of the petitioner to pay the fine amount within two months from today. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The judgment and sentence dated 07.09.2018 in Crl. Appeal No.105/2018 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru is modified. (iii) Consequently, the judgment and sentence dated 26.04.2018 in C.C. No.575/2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court) Mysuru is modified. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34367 CRL.RP No. 1162 of 2018 (iv) The petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (v) The petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant-respondent within two months from today failing which, the petitioner shall undergo three months simple imprisonment. (vi) The amount in deposit if any shall be released in favour of the complainant/ respondent. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46