- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31056 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 766 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI CHANDARASHEKAR, S/O YALAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SHETTIGOWDANADODDI, BIDADI HOBLI - 562109. RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDESH H, ADVOCATE) AND: UMASHANKAR K S, S/O. LATE. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO. 40, RENUKA NILAYA, KENCHANKUPPE, BIDADI HOBLI - 562109, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANTOSH KUMAR M B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., RAMANAGARA IN C.C.NO.583/2011 AND JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2018 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.NO.09/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31056 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). 2. A cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- said to have been issued by the petitioner to the respondent is dishonoured and the respondent has lodged a complaint after issuing notice to the petitioner. 3. Petitioner/accused raised a contention that the loan transaction alleged by the complainant is not established. 4. The Trial Court did not accept the plea and convicted the accused. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,20,000/- and further in default the petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of fine amount - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31056 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018 of Rs.3,20,000/-, a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the alleged loan transaction is not established and the complainant was a student at the time of alleged loan transaction in the year 2005-06 and even the evidence given on behalf of the complainant relating to the payment of loan amount in installment to the accused is not established. In addition, learned counsel would also urge that notice is not issued through registered post and the same is not served before filing the complaint as such the complaint is not tenable. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant would submit that the transaction is duly established. There is a presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act and said presumption relating to legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant is not rebutted by the petitioner/accused by leading rebuttable evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31056 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018 7. It is also his further submission that the notice is sent through registered post and acknowledgement card was not returned to the complainant and for this reason, he has produced the acknowledgement issued by the postal department for having delivered the notice to the petitioner / accused. 8. Rebutting the contention relating to the advance of the loan amount on the premise that the complainant was still a student in the year 2005-06, it is urged that no evidence is led on behalf of the petitioner / accused. He would also point out that the petitioner / accused has not stepped into the witness box to substantiate his contention. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. The defence of the petitioner that the cheque issued to someone else is misused and that the complainant has filed a false complaint is not established as no evidence is led to accept the contention that the cheque is issued to someone else and the same is handed over to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31056 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018 complainant and thereafter the complainant has misused the same. 11. It is also noticed that the petitioner has not led any rebuttal evidence. He has not stepped into the witness box to substantiate his contention. Evidence in the cross- examination of the witness on behalf of the complainant and the evidence in the cross-examination of the complainant is not good enough to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of NI Act. 12. As far as the contention that the notice is issued through registered post and same is not served to the petitioner is concerned, Ex.P6 and P7 are the answers to the said contention, wherein the postal acknowledgements issued by the postal department indicate that notice is delivered to the petitioner. 13. It is also noticed that there is no dispute relating to the address of the petitioner shown in the complaint. Under these circumstances, this Court has to draw presumption that notice is duly served on the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31056 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018 14. After considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, this Court finds that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court which concurrently held that the transaction is established and legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant/respondent is also established. 15. However, it is to be noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that the sentence imposed is disproportionate, in the sense the Trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed a penalty of sentence of one month in case amount of compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- is not paid. 16. Since the cheque amount is Rs.3,00,000/- and considering the fact that 50% of the fine amount is already deposited before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that the sentence of one year imposed by the Trial Court has to be set-aside and modified. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31056 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2018 17. The petitioner shall deposit balance fine amount within 45 days from today. In case amount is not deposited, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The amount in deposit and the amount to be deposited shall be released in favour of the complainant. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment dated 20.06.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.9/2018 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and the judgment dated 20.02.2018 in C.C.No.583/2011 on the file of JMFC, Ramanagara are modified as indicated above. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17