- 1 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1242 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.HIG 1272 FIRST FLOOR 2ND STAGE, S.B.M. COLONY, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU-570001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.C. RAVI KUMAR, ADV.) AND: SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY S/O RAMASWAMY L. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MAIN ROAD, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN HOLENARASIPURA-573211. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 05.10.2018, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.205/2017, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 19.10.2017, IN C.C.NO.666/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT,MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 2 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 CAV ORDER Accused has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19th October 2017 passed in CC No.666 of 2013 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) which is confirmed by Judgment dated 05th October 2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2017 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Hassan (for short hereinafter referred to as “the appellate Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as to dishonour of cheque. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant and accused are friends and well-acquainted with each other. Accused approached the complainant on 01st August 2012 for his financial exigencies, as he was running a school and was intending to construct additional structure and also for discharge of loan and hence in this regard, requested for an amount of ₹15,00,000/- from the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant has agreed to pay the sum on 13th August - 3 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 2012. On the said date, the accused borrowed the loan from the complainant and agreed to repay it in six months. To discharge the said loan, accused issued a post-dated Cheque bearing No.261899 dated 13th February 2013 drawn on Canara Bank, Vivekanandanagar Branch, Mysore as per Exhibit P1 in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the Cheque through his Banker i.e. Shri Vasavamba Co-operative Bank, Holenarsipura, Branch on 13th February, 2013, the cheque came to be dishonoured with bankers endorsement dated 14th March 2013, stating “insufficient funds”. The complainant has requested the accused on 10th March 2013 to repay the dishonoured Cheque amount to which the accused has replied arrogantly. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 22nd March 2013 through Registered Post to both the addresses of the accused. Among the two addresses, the notice sent to one of the addresses was duly served and one returned with an endorsement "Not claimed”. The accused failed to comply with the notice by paying the Cheque amount, and has given a false reply. Hence, the complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Holenarsipura, which came to be registered and renamed as PCR No.201 of 2013. - 4 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and recorded the sworn-statement of the Complainant and issued process to the accused and registered the case in CC No.666 of 2013 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accused appeared through his Counsel and was enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, complainant has examined three witnesses as PWs1 to 3 and produced 41 documents as Exhibits P1 to P41. On closure of complainant’s side evidence, Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of complainant witnesses and has adduced evidence of two witnesses as DWs1 & 2 and marked two documents as Exhibits D1 and D2. Complainant has submitted written arguments. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by this Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the III - 5 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hassan in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2017. Same came to be dismissed on 05th October 2018. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by appellate Court, accused is before this Court in this Revision Petition. Submission on behalf of the accused-revision petitioner: 5. Sri M.C. Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court, suffers from non- application of mind as also non-appreciation of law and facts, and the same is neither sustainable in law nor on facts. He submitted that the Court below, based only on presumptions, surmises and conjectures, which are not relevant to the circumstance of the case, has passed the impugned Judgment of conviction which again is erroneously confirmed by the appellate Court. The complainant has averred that he has lent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused, but has not submitted any evidence to corroborate this fact. As per Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, any payment above Rs.20,000/- must be made by way of Cheque. The complainant has no source of - 6 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 income to lend such huge sum to the accused. Further, submits that the endorsement issued by the Canara Bank did not bear the seal and signature, and the same is concocted and created. However, both the Courts have not considered the above. The revision petitioner is a retired Professor and his children are also well-settled. Petitioner’s son is working abroad and daughter is working at Bengaluru and both are having handsome income. The revision petitioner is a pensioner as well. The sale deed Exhibit P32 has not been executed by the wife of the complainant alone. The sale consideration amount of Rs.9,60,000/- was not entirely belonging to the wife of the complainant. Though the accused has closed his account during the year 2008 itself and has exhausted all the Cheque leaves, apart from the Cheque in question, as the same was given to his wife which he was under the impression that even that Cheque might have been used by his wife as he is not in the habit of writing counterfoils. The last Cheque issued was to LIC and thereafter he has not operated the said account. The accused was shocked to comprehend as to how the respondent, who is a stranger, was in custody of the Cheque. Both the Courts have erred in concluding that the respondent has the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable - 7 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 Instruments Act. The petitioner has rebutted the presumption by: a) issuing a reply to the notice issued by the complainant; b) conducting cross examination; and c) way of leading evidence and producing the documents But, the same is not considered by both the Courts. 6. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is the case of the complainant that for the purpose of constructing additional structure in the education institution, the accused is said to have borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- on 01st August 2012 with an assurance to repay the same and in that regard, has issued a Cheque dated 13th February 2013. It is the specific case of the complainant that the post-dated Cheque was given, which came to be dishonoured by the Bank with an endorsement “Insufficient funds”, and as such, legal notice was issued to the accused on 22nd March, 2013. The accused is said to have replied to the Notice on 06th April, 2013 as per Exhibit P7. 7. Further, it submitted that in the cross-examination when the question about source of money was posed, the complainant has given explanation that it is his Brother-in-law, - 8 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 who gave money by selling a Plot measuring 30 x 40 situated at Nachenahalli, JP Nagar, Mysore. Whereas, in the cross- examination of the complainant, there are serious contradictions with regard to receipt of money, where the complainant mentioned that his brother-in-law gave a sum of Rs.9,60,000/-. 8. It is his further submission that the endorsement of “insufficient funds” is not given by the Canara Bank and does not contain the seal of Canara Bank to evidence the same. The printed shara is manipulated by the complainant to surreptitiously introduce in the Court, as if the Cheque was returned. The complainant has examined the officials of Sri Vasavamba Co-operative Bank and Canara Bank. When an application is made as such under Section 91 of Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call a witness, more particularly a Bank witness, it is presumable that the witness coming from the Bank to give evidence is an official witness and such witness is expected to speak pertaining to the documents either received or dispatched from the Bank from where the Cheque was originated. It is also submitted that Exhibit P1 Cheque has no seal of the said Branch of Canara Bank, which - 9 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 was received from Sri Vasavamba Co-operative Bank, Holenarasipura Branch, for realisation. 9. Further, it is submitted that the important aspect which is apparent on record, is the evidence of the complainant which is categorical to say that the accused gave a post-dated Cheque in favour of the complainant. On close examination of the same, one could see that the signature, admittedly belongs to the accused, is in one ink, whereas the date, name and amount in words and in figure are written in different ink and the handwriting is also different. This supports the case of the accused that the signed Cheque was there in the Cheque of 20 leaves and one missing is not utilised by the wife of the accused for school expenditure. 10. Further, he would submit that the introduction relating CTS Cheque transactions was, admittedly, around the year 2005. The missing Cheque being the subject matter, was one from the Cheque book issued in the year 2002. Bank Circular mandates surrender of the non-CTS Cheques/chequebooks after the introduction of CTS concept. Therefore, the subject matter of Exhibit P1 date back to 2002, more particularly, when the said account became inoperative in the year 2008. It was necessary for the Bank witness, if he was - 10 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 genuinely a Bank witness, to have spoken about the inoperative aspect of the said Bank account when the Exhibit P1 was submitted for realisation. Therefore, looked from any angle, the complainant played fraud in collusion with Bank witness. Further, if Exhibit P2 were to be genuine, it should have been a computer-generated memo. Whereas, Exhibit P2 is a printed blank memo kept in the Bank to be obtained by anybody for utilisation, prior to 2005. Had it been a computer-generated memo, the need for the verification of a signature might not be necessary. Since Exhibit P2 is a printed one, the same cannot be treated as computer-generated, more particularly, in the year 2013. Hence, he submits that taking into consideration the above points, the pleadings and evidence placed on record, the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption of Section 139 and the endorsement as “insufficient funds” marked as Exhibit P2 is a fabricated memo, deliberately made for unlawful gain. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the Revision Petition. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.439 OF 2018 AND CONNECTED APPEAL DECIDED ON 09.10.2023 IN THE CASE OF SMT. PAVITHRA v. SMT. SHEELA V; - 11 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 2. CRIMNIAL APPEAL NO.939 OF 2010 DECIDED ON 07.08.2019 IN THE CASE OF YESHWANTH KUMAR v. SHANTH KUMAR N; 3. JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.724 OF 2025 DECIDED ON 26.03.2025 IN THE CASE OF REKHA SHARAD USHIR v. SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LIMITED Submission on behalf of the respondent-complainant: 11. On the other hand, Sri Rajaram Sooryambail, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant would submit that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court. He would submit that both the Courts have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused and the complainant and assigned proper reasons to reject the grounds urged by them. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of revision petition. 12. Having heard on both sides and on perusal of material placed before me, the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the Judgment of the trial Court, which - 12 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 is confirmed by the appellate Court is perverse, capricious, illegal, and suffers from legal infirmities. Finding: 13. It is the case of the complainant that the accused has issued Exhibit P1-cheque dated 13th February 2013 to discharge loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- which was borrowed on 13th August 2012. Accused has not disputed that Cheque-Exhibit P1 belongs to him. In his evidence DW1 has clearly admitted that the Cheque-Exhibit P1 belongs to him. When the Cheque was presented to the Bank, the same returned with endorsement “Insufficient funds”. Accused has not specifically denied as to signature on the Cheque, which is marked as Exhibit P1(a). Learned Counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that the Bank endorsement-Exhibit P3 is concocted and a created document. The Bank authorities have not put their seal on Exhibit P3. Bank authorities have also not issued the computer- generated endorsement. In this regard, I have examined Exhibit P3-endorsement. This is a printed Form maintained by Canara Bank. One Sri Vasudeva Murthy has put his signature on behalf of Sri Vasavamba Co-operative Bank Ltd and the reason for return of Cheque No.261899 for Rs.15,00,000/- is insufficient funds. This endorsement of the Bank has not been - 13 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 disputed by the accused in reply Notice Exhibit P7. Even DW1- Nanjundegowda, the retired Principal, has not whispered anything as to the contents of Exhibit P3. To substantiate the contents of Exhibit P3, complainant has examined the Bank Manager, Sri S.R. Murthy of Sri Vasavamba Co-operative Bank Ltd. He has clearly deposed in his evidence as to the presentation of Cheque No.261899 and he has sent the same to Industrial Development Bank of India (for short "the IDBI") and the IDBI has sent intimation as to insufficient funds in the account. When they have sent the Cheque for realisation to Canara Bank, Vivekanandanagar Branch on 8th March 2013, they issued the endorsement as “funds insufficient”. In this regard, Exhibit P 33-certificate issued by Sri Vasavamba Co- operative Bank Ltd., reads as under: "²æà Dgï. ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀªÀÄÆðw ©£ï J¯ï. gÁªÀĸÁé«Ä ±ÉnÖ, ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAQ£À°ègÀĪÀ CªÀgÀ G½vÁAiÀÄ SÁvÉ £ÀA. 3285 PÉÌ PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAPï, «ªÉÃPÁ£ÀAzÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ±ÁSÉ, ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À ZÉPï £ÀA. 261899, ZÉPï ¢£ÁAPÀ 13-02-2013 gÀÆ. 15,00,000-00 (gÀÆ. ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ®PÀë ªÀiÁvÀæ) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÉPï £ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀgÀtPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 14-02- 2013 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAQUÉ PÀ¯ÉPÀë£ïUÁV PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, - 14 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 C°èAiÀÄ SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀUÀzÀÄ E®èªÉA§ÄzÁV ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ £ÁªÀÅ PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAPï ªÉÄʸÀÆj£ÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ZÉPï ªÁ¥À¸Áìw ªÉĪÉÆzÉÆA¢UÉ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ zÀ£ÁAPÀ 28-02-2013 gÀ°è CzÉà ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀgÀtPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀzÀÄÝ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 04-03-2013 gÀ°è SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀUÀzÀÄ E®èªÉA§ÄzÁV ªÁ¥À¸ÁìVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ²æà Dgï. ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀ ªÀÄÆwðgÀªÀjUÉ ZÉPï£ÉÆqÀ£É PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAPï ªÉÄʸÀÆj£ÀªÀgÀ ZÉPï ªÁ¥À¸Áìw ªÉĪÉÆzÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà Dgï. ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀ ªÀÄÆwðgÀªÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉ ªÉÄÃgÉ F zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ." 14. Another witness PW3-Ningegowda of Canara Bank, Vivekananda Nagar Branch, Mysore has deposed that account No.6624 belongs to one Nanjundegowda who is the customer of the Bank and he has issued Cheque-Exhibit P1. The same was presented for realisation. They issued endorsement Exhibit P2 stating “funds insufficient”. During the course of cross- examination of this witness, learned Counsel for the accused has not disputed as to the endorsement. With regard to bank slips, it is relevant to mention here as to the provision of - 15 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The same reads as under: "146. Bank's slip prima facie evidence of certain facts The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved." 15. In the case on hand, though the accused has not disputed that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, he has disputed that endorsement does not bear seal and signature of the Bank. A careful examination of this document makes it is clear that instead of Bank's seal, there is the name of Sri Vasavamba Co-operative Bank Ltd., Holenarsipura, written in handwriting and one of the officials of the Bank has also put his signature. There is official mark of Canara Bank on this endorsement. 16. In view of the aforesaid provision of Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it is clear that on production of the bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the Cheque has been dishonoured, presume, the fact of dishonour of such Cheque, unless and until such fact is - 16 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 disproved. Merely because there is no seal of the concerned Bank, the same would not be a ground to reject the Bank and endorsement issued by the concerned Bank, which is also proved by adducing oral evidence of PWs2 & 3 and also certificate-Exhibit P33. Apart from this, upon the deposit of the Cheque-Exhibit P1 for realisation, the Bank authorities i.e. the Manager of Sri Vasaamba Co-operative Bank Ltd. has affixed seal and signature while requesting the IDBI to realise the Cheque amount. Accordingly, the complainant has proved the contents of Exhibit P3 bank and its endorsement. Accused has not placed any material to rebut the presumption under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act as to the slip issued by the concerned bank. On the contrary, Exhibit P7 is issued on behalf of the accused and during the course of cross-examination of PWs1 to 3 and evidence of DW1, accused has not taken any contention that Exhibit P2-endorsement is a concocted and created document. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. 17. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Bank authorities ought to have issued computer-generated bank slip. This argument also cannot be accepted, as there is no provision under Negotiable - 17 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 Instruments Act or any other provision in any enactment. The Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has not placed any material to show that unless the Bank issues and endorsement which is computer-generated, the endorsement is not admissible in evidence. If the accused has disputed the contents of Exhibit P2, the entire burden lies upon him to rebut the presumption under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But no such rebuttal evidence is placed by the accused. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 18. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that bank transaction relating to the introduction of CTS Cheque was around the year 2005. The missing Cheque being the subject matter was the cheque-book issued in the year 2002, Bank circulation mandates surrender of non-CTS Cheques since the CTS concept was introduced. Therefore, the Exhibit P1 date back to 2002, more particularly, when the said account become inoperative in the year 2008 itself, it was necessary for the Bank witness to examine the aspect of said account when Exhibit P1 was submitted for realisation. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant played fraud in collusion with bank witness. It is submitted that Exhibit P2 is a printed blank memo - 18 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 kept in the Bank to be used by anyone prior to year 2005. Had it been computer-generated memo, the need for verification of signature may not be necessary. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also produced memo along with Reserve Bank of India guidelines downloaded through internet. In this guidelines, there is no bar to receive the Cheque which has no CTS compliance. Therefore, this argument also cannot be accepted. 19. As regards, cash transaction is concerned, it is submitted that the complainant has violated the provisions of section 269SS of Income Tax Act. In this regard, this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.2011 of 2013, decided on 18th November 2022 in the case of GAJANAN v. APPASAHEB SIDDAMALLAPPA KAVERI, relying on the decisions of various other High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that the contravention of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, does not make the alleged transaction void. Concerned authorities can take necessary action against the complainant for non- compliance of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act. Only on that ground this Court cannot interfere with the judgment passed by the courts below. In view of the said judgment, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused cannot be accepted. - 19 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 20. With regard to financial capacity of the petitioner is concerned in Exhibit P7, the accused has not taken any contention to the effect that the complainant has no financial capacity to lend amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. However, the complainant has produced Exhibit P32-Sale Deed dated 25th July 2012, by which agreement a plot is sold by the wife of the complainant for valuable consideration of Rs.9,60,000/-. He has also produced Exhibits P8 to P32, the invoices pertaining to Mysore Sandal Soap and other prestigious companies to show that the complainant was having agency of such companies. DW1 has not disputed as to Exhibits P8 to P32 in his evidence. In the decision of Supreme Court in the case of ASHOK SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.4171 of 2024 decided on 02nd April, 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the onus is not on the complainant at the threshold to prove his capacity to make payment and discharge of which is alleged to have been issued in his favour. Only if an objection is raised that the complainant was not in a financial position to pay the amount so claimed by him to have been given as loan to the accused, only then the complainant would have to bring before the Court cogent material to indicate that he had the financial capacity and had actually advanced with the amount in question by way - 20 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 of loan. In the case on hand, at the time of issuance of reply notice, the accused has not questioned the complainant as to the financial capacity but only during the course of cross- examination of PW1, he has questioned. Thereafter, the complainant has adduced oral evidence along with the documentary evidence-Exhibits P8 to P32 and the accused has not placed any material to show that the complainant was not having the financial capacity to land and amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Therefore, this argument advanced on behalf of the accused also fails. 21. Another contention taken by the accused is that Cheque Exhibit P1 has no seal of the branch of Canara bank receiving the Cheque from Sri Vasavamba Co-operative Bank Ltd. as far as realisation is concerned. In this regard, Exhibit P2-Bank's printed slip itself reveals that the endorsement was issued by the said Bank. Therefore, the seal on Exhibit P1 is not at all required. Hence, the said argument also do not stand. 22. It is also contended that the bank account of the complainant was inoperative from the year 2008. The status of the said Cheque was not CTS complaint and the same can be realised by computer application in order to ascertain availability of balance. Merely because the bank transaction - 21 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 was inoperative from 2008, this Court cannot reject that the Cheque is not issued by the accused. Among the counterfoils of the Cheque book containing cheque leaves bearing No.261881 to 261900, one of the counterfoils i.e. Exhibit P1-Cheque No.261899 is pertaining to the said Cheque book. All the counterfoils are left blank. DW1 has deposed in his evidence that he has received cheque-book from Canara Bank in the year 2002, which consists of 10 leafs and all the cheque leaves exhausted in the year 2003. Thereafter, there is no transaction in the said Bank. In this regard, he has produced Exhibit D1 counterfoils and Exhibit D2-Passbook of Canara Bank. Exhibit D2-Passbook reveals that this transaction of the accused pertaining to the account No.6624 between 02nd November, 2002 and 17th September 2003. The accused has not produced any document to show that this account No.6624 was inoperative from 2003. Even if we presume that the account No.6624 was inoperative, that does not mean that the accused has not issued Exhibit P1 in favour of the complainant. The Cheque book was in the custody of the complainant and he can make use of the Cheque leaf as per his convenience. Accordingly, the accused has issued the Cheque in favour of the complainant as stated by the complainant. Therefore, the production of Exhibits D1 and D2 will not be of any help to the - 22 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 accused to rebut the presumption and Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused has also taken defence that his Bank account was inoperative. DW1 in his evidence also has deposed the same. In Exhibit P7, he has stated that the accused was astonished to get to know as to how the complainant has come into possession of his Cheque. In this regard, the accused has not taken any legal steps against the complainant. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that accused was a Professor in the College at Mysuru in 2008 and the administration of Education Institution viz. 'Vidya Niketan' was being run by his wife. For the purpose of payment of money to school staff and other expenses, the signed Cheques were sometimes kept in the School Office itself. The Cheque book was a non-CTS Cheque and the account was inoperative from 2008 and all the leaves of Cheque book were exhausted. It was only known when the Cheque was presented for encashment and notice was issued upon for dishonour of Cheque. Reply was also given to the said notice. Even the person who stole the cheque could not be identified and hence no complaint was given. This argument cannot be accepted for the reason that when the accused has received the demand notice from the complainant to pay the Cheque amount, the complainant ought to have taken legal steps against the - 23 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 accused for issuance of Cheque for Rs.15,00,000/-. Even after filing the complaint and after receipt of Court summons, accused has not taken any legal steps against the complainant for misuse of cheque on the basis of dishonour of the cheque as also the Bank's endorsement. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused cannot be accepted. 23. On 22nd July, 2025, after submitting arguments on merits, the learned Counsel for the accused-revision petitioner filed application under along with memorandum of facts to initiate proceedings against the respondent as he has created document Exhibit P2. This Court has elaborately discussed as to Exhibit P2-Bank endorsement and held that it is a genuine endorsement issued by the concerned Bank. Hence, the application filed under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 379 of BNSS, 2023, is not maintainable. 24. On careful scrutiny of the entire material placed on record, it becomes crystal clear that the complainant has proved the essential ingredients to attract the commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and complied all the mandatory provisions of the said section before filing the complaint. The complainant has discharged his - 24 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 burden to prove his case. On the contrary, the accused has failed to rebut statutory presumption. Both the courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 25. On re-evaluation of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any error/Legal infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence I answer the point arose for consideration in the negative. 26. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19th October 2017 passed in CC No.666 of 2013 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, which is confirmed by Judgment dated 05th October 2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2017 by the III Additional - 25 - CRL.RP No. 1242 of 2018 District & Sessions Judge at Hassan, is confirmed; iii) Consequently, Application filed by the Revision Petitioner under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 379 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. iv) Registry to send the trial court records along with the copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn