- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 104 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI KIRANKUMAR B R S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS DESIGN SENIOR TECHNICIAN STRUCTURE ASSEMBLE LAC PRODUCTION, HAL POST BOX No.3791 MARATHHALLI, BANGALURU PIN - 560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADEESHA S R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAJKUMAR S/O SUBBAREDDY B M AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT No.20, SIMHADRI NILAYA IYENGAR LAYUT, NEAR BBMP OFFICE 1ST CROSS, KUNDLU MAIN ROAD BANGALURU - 560 058. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S G MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2017 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.No.51355/2015 AND ORDER DATED 21.12.2017 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.No.25012/2017 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2017 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.No.51355/2015 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. AND BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT U/S 200 OF CR.P.C. ALLEGING THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH 142 OF N.I. ACT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. WITH COST AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 25012/2017 by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the judgment of conviction passed in C.C. No. 51355/2015 by XIV ACMM, Bengaluru convicting the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `N.I. Act’) and order on sentence directing the petitioner - accused to pay fine of Rs.3,70,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 months has been affirmed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 3. Case of the respondent - complainant before the trial Court was that the petitioner - accused had approached him during May, 2014 seeking financial assistance expressing his difficulties and requested for hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondent - complainant had lent Rs.3,00,000/- to petitioner - accused in cash and petitioner - accused had agreed to repay the same with interest. When respondent - complainant demanded for repayment of borrowed amount during October, 2014, petitioner - accused had paid Rs.20,000/- by way of cash and had issued 2 cheques bearing Nos. 222680 dated 25.11.2014 and 222679 dated 27.10.2014 for Rs.1,40,000/- each drawn on State Bank of India, HAL Branch, Bengaluru towards discharge of his debt to respondent - complainant. Respondent - complainant presented both the cheques for encashment and they came to be dishonoured for the reason `funds insufficient’. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 Respondent - complainant got issued legal notice dated 22.11.2014. Inspite of service of notice petitioner - accused has not paid the amount of both cheques and therefore, respondent - complainant had initiated proceedings for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Respondent - complainant, in order to prove his case has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner - accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7. Learned Magistrate, after appreciating evidence on record and hearing arguments on both sides, has convicted petitioner - accused and passed sentence thereon as noted supra. Said judgment of conviction and order on sentence had been challenged by the petitioner - accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 25012/2017. Said appeal came to be dismissed on merits affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and sentence passed thereon. In the said appeal petitioner - accused had filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 an application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to produce legal notice dated 11.10.2013 by way of additional evidence and the same came to be rejected under point No. 3 of the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the appellate Court and rejection of his application, petitioner - accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner - accused would contend that he has got issued reply to the legal notice on 17.01.2015 as per Ex.P.11 and he has taken up the defence that he had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and repaid the same along with interest and totally he had paid Rs.1,37,000/-. Thereafter he had issued legal notice dated 11.10.2013 to respondent - complainant seeking return of the cheques issued by him as security for the said loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. Said notice had returned unclaimed. He further submits that the said defence had been put to P.W.1 in his cross-examination. Even D.W.1 had stated the said defence in his evidence. It is submitted that even - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 issuance of legal notice in the year 2013 has been stated in the reply notice – Ex.P.11. He submits that petitioner could not produce the said legal notice dated 11.10.2013 as it was produced in a private complaint filed by petitioner - accused. He submits that said notice had been taken back from the PCR filed by petitioner – accused after withdrawal of the complaint and produced the same before the appellate Court along with application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and the said application came to be dismissed without giving sufficient reasons and it came to be rejected technically. On perusal of the contents of the said legal notice dated 11.10.2013 cheque numbers of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 have been specifically mentioned and said legal notice is dated 11.10.2013 which is prior to alleged hand loan taken during May 2015. Said legal notice dated 11.10.2013 establishes the case of petitioner - accused. Petitioner - accused has taken up a probable defence in his legal notice dated 11.10.2013, if he is not permitted to lead additional evidence he will be put to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 injustice. With this, he prayed to allow said application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and to remand the matter to the appellate Court for leading additional evidence. 5. Learned counsel for respondent - complainant would contend that in Ex.P.11 – reply notice numbers of the cheques have been mentioned and one of them pertain to different series than cheques at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Payments made by petitioner - accused is detailed in bank counterfoils as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 and they indicate that he had made payment even during April, May and July, 2014 and that itself indicates that those payments were made towards amount borrowed during May, 2014. Petitioner - accused has taken up contradictory defence in his legal notice – Ex.P.11 and in suggestion made to P.W.1 in his cross-examination and evidence of D.W.1. Petitioner - accused had an opportunity to summon the said document but he has not made any efforts in that regard. Petitioner - accused was in the habit of borrowing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 money from family members of HAL employees, issuing cheques and subsequently those cheques came to be dishonoured. Material on record indicate that the defence of petitioner - accused has not been established and based on the presumption drawn under Section 139 of N.I. Act the trial Court has rightly convicted petitioner - accused and the appellate Court has rightly affirmed the conviction. The appellate Court also rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner - accused under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the impugned judgments, trial Court record and appellate Court records. 7. It is the case of respondent - complainant that petitioner - accused had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- during the year 2014 and subsequently had repaid Rs.20,000/- and issued 2 cheques (Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2) dated 27.10.2014 and 25.11.2014 for Rs.1,40,000/- each and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 they came to be dishonoured. Respondent - complainant got issued legal notice dated 22.11.2014 demanding payment of amount of cheques. Petitioner - accused has issued reply to the said legal notice as per Ex.P.11 on 17.01.2015. In the said legal notice petitioner - accused has taken up the defence that petitioner - accused and respondent - complainant were friends and both were working in HAL. Respondent – complainant was conducting cheeti business with company employee and petitioner - accused had deposited premiums of cheeti as a member. Respondent - complainant had obtained singed blank cheques and stamp paper for security for future premiums vide cheque No. 222679, 222680 and 472642 drawn on SBI, AIR Craft Factory, HAL Complex, Bengaluru. In the said reply notice it is stated that petitioner had issued legal notice in the year 2013 to the respondent - complainant asking for return of the said cheques and stamp papers. P.W.1, in his chief examination, has stated that after repayment of the amount petitioner - accused - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 had sought for return of the cheques and respondent - complainant told him that cheques were with his father and he did not return those cheques. In order to establish the said defence petitioner - accused has produced the said legal notice issued in the year 2013. Petitioner - accused has not produced the said legal notice before the trial Court. Said legal notice was produced before the appellate Court under an application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and said legal notice is dated 11.10.2013. On perusal of the contents of the said legal notice dated 11.10.2013, 2 cheques which are at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are mentioned with their serial number. If the said legal notice is produced in evidence it goes to establish that prior to May 2014, i.e., in the year 2013 itself, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques were with the respondent - complainant and it probabalises the defence of the petitioner - accused. The reasons for non-production of the said legal notice when the matter was pending before the trial Court has been stated in the application that it was produced in a private - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 complaint and therefore, it could not be produced. Said application came to be rejected by the appellate Court only on the ground that petitioner - accused ought to have made efforts to summon the said records of the private complaint from the concerned Court. Merely because petitioner - accused has not summoned the said document from the concerned Court is not a ground for rejecting the application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and the document sought to be produced is a relevant document required to establish the defence of petitioner - accused. If the said application is rejected it will deprive the right of the petitioner - accused to establish his probable defence. Considering the said aspect the appellate Court ought to have allowed the said application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. seeking to produce legal notice dated 11.10.2013 and other documents. Considering the above aspects petitioner - accused has made out grounds for allowing the application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. In view of the same, petitioner - accused should be given - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 an opportunity to lead his evidence on the documents produced along with his application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., i.e., legal notice dated 11.10.2013 and other documents filed along with the memo dated 22.11.2017. In view of the above, judgment of the appellate Court requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the appellate Court for providing opportunity to petitioner - accused to lead additional evidence on the documents produced along with his application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. 8. In the result, the following; O R D E R I. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. II. Impugned judgment dated 21.12.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 25012/2017 by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. III. Application filed by the petitioner - accused under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26757 CRL.RP No. 104 of 2018 IV. The matter is remanded to the appellate Court with a direction to permit petitioner - accused to lead additional evidence sought in his application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter dispose of the appeal on merits. Send trial Court records and appellate Court records with copy this order to appellate Court forthwith. Both the parties to appear before the appellate Court on 16.08.2025 without anticipating any Court notice. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29