- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 282 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI P.N.SURESH, S/O P.N.SHETTY,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS EARLIER RESIDING AT NO.180/1 FLAT NO.21, ROHINI APARTMENTS 9TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN,BENGALURU-560 027 NOW RESIDING AT NO.454 SRI HARI APARTMENTS,8TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR,BENGALURU-560 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S PADMAVATHI PIPES & FITTINGS PARTNERSHIP FIRM,OFFICE AT NO.165 KUMBARPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI DEEPAK KUMAR GOEL, AGED 47 YEARS,S/O HARIRAM GUPTA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, AD VOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF CONVICTION DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED AGAINST THE ACCUSED BY XXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 C.C.NO.33110/2014 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2018 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-60), BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1543/2016 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed against the concurrent findings by the Courts below for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'Act, 1881'). 2. Petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.21,05,000/-, out of which Rs.21,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid as fine to the Government. The Sessions Court has confirmed the said judgment. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in this Revision Petition. 3. Admittedly, two cheques of Rs.10.00 lakh each and one cheque for Rs.1.00 lakh issued by the petitioner to the respondent were dishonoured for want of sufficient - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 funds. The complainant has issued notice under the Act, 1881 and thereafter, there was no payment by the accused and as such complaint is filed alleging offence under Section 138 of Act, 1881. 4. The complainant/respondent was a tenant of the petitioner/accused. The complainant had taken two premises on rent from the petitioner/accused and he claims to have paid Rs.36.00 lakhs as security deposit. The complainant-respondent has vacated the premises and Rs.5.00 lakhs was adjusted towards arrears of rent. 5. The complainant claims that towards the payment of balance security deposit of Rs.31.00 lakhs, the aforementioned 4 cheques were issued and out of them a cheque for Rs.10.00 lakhs was honoured and remaining two cheques of Rs.10.00 lakhs each and one cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- were dishonoured. 6. Petitioner/accused replied to the notice under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and took a contention that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 Rs.20.00 lakhs is repaid to the complainant in cash, in the presence of two new tenants viz., Saravana and Praveen Kumar who came in place of the complainant as tenants, as such there is no liability. The Trial Court has not accepted the defence and convicted the accused and so also the Sessions Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the repayment of Rs.20.00 lakhs is very much established as the new tenant viz., Saravana Kumar was examined before the Court and he has stated that he has paid Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash to the complainant and that Rs.20.00 lakhs paid by him was treated as security deposit by the new tenant. 8. It is also his further submission that evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and the presumption in favour of the complainant is very much discharged and the judgments passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are liable to be set-aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 9. It is his further submission that the petitioner- accused had taken a defence that he has received Rs.46.00 lakhs as a security deposit out of which Rs.10.00 lakh was repaid by way of cash. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the Trial Court and the Sessions Court have rightly convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Act, 1881 noticing that the evidence led is contrary to the defense raised in the reply notice to Section 138 of Act, 1881. It is his further submission that the version of the petitioner-accused that Rs.20.00 lakhs was repaid in cash through new tenant is highly unacceptable and no documentary evidence is produced to show that Rs.20.00 lakhs was treated as security deposit between the petitioner and the new tenant. 11. It is also urged that another tenant who is said to be a witness to repayment of Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash is not examined and the presumption available under Section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 139 of Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant is not rebutted. 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 13. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner is not in dispute. It is also noticed that the petitioner had received amount from the accused as security deposit. The complainant/respondent has vacated the premises. This being the position, the petitioner-landlord is under obligation to repay the security deposit. 14. It is an admitted fact that as on the date of vacating the premises, Rs.5.00 lakhs was adjusted towards arrears of rent. The complainant has stated that he had paid Rs.36.00 lakhs as security deposit. 15. Though the petitioner-accused contends that he has received Rs.46.00 lakhs as security deposit and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 Rs.10.00 lakhs was repaid in cash, such a contention is not established by adducing acceptable evidence. 16. This being the position, two cheques for Rs.10.00 lakhs and 1 cheque for Rs.1.00 lakh issued in favour of the complainant is to be treated as the cheques issued towards repayment of the security deposit. It is also noticed that cheque for Rs.10.00 lakhs issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent is honoured and thereby, the liability to repay the security deposit came down by Rs.10.00 lakhs. After deducting Rs.10.00 lakhs, the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.21.00 lakhs and the accused was liable to pay Rs.21. 00 lakhs. 17. Though, accused made an attempt to substantiate his contention that he repaid Rs.20.00 lakhs to the complainant through his new tenant by examining the new tenant, the said evidence cannot be accepted. Payment of Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash by the new tenant to the outgoing tenant is not evidenced by any documentary evidence. There is nothing on record to hold that Rs.20.00 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 lakhs said to have been paid by the new tenant to the complainant is treated as security deposit between the petitioner and new tenant. No such lease agreement is produced. 18. As rightly noticed by the Trial Court another tenant who is said to be a witness to the transaction of payment of Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash is not examined. 19. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the presumption available in favour of the complainant is not rebutted by the accused. 20. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the finding. This Court having noticed the aforementioned facts and the circumstances and also having noticed the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere in exercise of powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 21. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33699 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2019 22. Amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the complainant/respondent. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12