- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35761 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1238 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MOHAN KUMAR C K, S/O KESHAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PROPRIETOR SRI KALIKAMBA ENTERPRISES, CHIKKABELATHI, OPP SRIRAMA TEMPLE, VADDARAHALLI (P),0 SHARAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI DHANANJAY B C, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K P MALLESH, S/O LT PARAMASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PROPRIETOR CC ENTERPRISES, TUBINAKERE INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANDYA, R/AT NO 13, 2ND CROSS, RMP LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570026. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1.SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DTD 02.07.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.387/2024, ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, AND REMAND THAT CASE TO THE FIRST APPELLANT COURT FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.2354/2021 ON Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35761 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2025 THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The accused/petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). 2. The complainant states that he has transmitted Rs.1,50,000/- on 05.10.2019 to the accused through NEFT transaction and Rs.2,50,000/- on 24.10.2019 through RTGS transaction and Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.10.2019 through cash. In all, the complainant claims that he has paid Rs.5,00,000/- as hand loan. 3. The complainant further pleads that on 10.10.2020, accused issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- towards payment of loan amount. Cheque was dishonoured. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35761 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2025 Payment is not made despite issuance of notice. Hence, the complaint is filed. 4. The accused did not plead guilty. The Trial Court concluded that the transaction is established and the amount is not repaid. The signature on the cheque is not in dispute. The Trial Court concluded that the petitioner/accused committed offence and imposed a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal and appeal is dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has not disclosed the loan transaction in the income tax returns, as such the transaction alleged by the complainant is not established. It is his further submission that payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made in cash is not established. Thus, he would contend that the Trial Court and Appellate Court committed error in convicting the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35761 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2025 7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in case the Court is convicting the accused, the accused be granted one year time to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. The complainant has produced Ex.P4-Bank statement. From the Bank statement, it is apparent that Rs.4,00,000/- is paid through online transaction. It is the case of the petitioner that Rs.1,00,000/- is paid in cash. Accused though disputed the liability did not lead any rebuttal evidence. The presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not rebutted. 10. Under these circumstances, both the Courts have rightly held that the complainant has established his case. It is also noticed that the amount is paid in the year 2019 and accused is convicted in the year 2024. The fine amount imposed is only Rs.5,00,000/- and no additional fine amount - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35761 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2025 is imposed. The complainant has accepted the said judgment. 11. This Court does not find any error in the judgment passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. 12. It is stated that Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited before the Trial Court. The said amount shall be released in favour of the respondent/ complainant. In terms of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused is required to pay Rs.4,00,000/-. 13. This Court is not convinced to grant one year time to pay the amount as the amount is paid in the year 2019 and no additional compensation is awarded in favour of the complainant. The complainant in terms of the order passed by the Trial Court is only entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-. However, since it is urged that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount immediately in which event he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months, this Court is of the view that six months time is to be granted to the petitioner to pay the balance of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35761 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2025 Rs.4,00,000/-. It is made clear that in case, the amount is not paid within six months, the sentence stands reviewed. 14. This Court is also conscious about the fact that time is extended without issuance of notice to the respondent/ complainant. In case, respondent/complainant is aggrieved by this order, he is at liberty to move this Court for recalling or modification of the order. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. Six months time from today is granted, to the petitioner to pay the fine amount as ordered. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29