- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1132 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI R. BASAVARAJU S/O. RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS TECHNICAL OFFICER “C”, ID NO.198200700 , RSIF DIVISION, GTRE, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093. …PETITIONER (BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI G.N. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. NO.19/7A, DOCTORS LAYOUT, III A CROSS, ‘B’ CHANNASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G. UDAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE (CCH- 58) IN CRL.A.NO.25150/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2013 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, IN CASE BEARING C.C.NO.26594/2011. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER The revision petitioner has filed this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.26594/2011 dated 25.10.2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short) which is confirmed by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-58) in Crl.A.25150/2013 dated 23.07.2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ for short). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that, the complainant and accused are friends and well known to each other. Accused approached and requested the complainant for hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/- for his urgent family necessities. The complainant paid the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 same on 14.03.2010 by way of cash to the accused. Accused agreed to repay the same within six months with interest. On the same day the accused issued six cheques bearing No.459792 for Rs.25,000/- and No.459794 dated 22.09.2010 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, HAL II Stage, Bangalore, cheques bearing No.114804 dated 20.09.2010 for Rs.25,000/-, No.114803 dated 22.09.2010 for Rs.20,000/-, No.114806 dated 24.09.2010 for Rs.20,000/- and No.114802 dated. 25.09.2010 for Rs.35,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Frazer Town Branch, Bangalore. As per the instructions of the accused, he presented all the cheques for encashment through Andhra Bank, INR Branch, Bangalore, but they were returned with an endorsement as "Account Closed/Funds Insufficient". Accordingly, he got issued legal notice to the accused dated 18.10.2010 through RPAD and UCP. Notice sent through RPAD and UCP to the residential address was returned with a postal shara "incomplete address". Notice sent to the office address was served personally upon the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 accused, but he failed to make payment of cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Therefore, he filed the complaint. 4. The Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments and a case was registered in C.C.No. 26594/2011. The substance of the plea was recorded, having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and 31 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P31. On closure of complainant’s side, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded, the accused has totally denied the evidence of PW1. The accused adduced evidence as DW1 and produced 5 documents as Exs.D1 to D5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 6. The Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the said offence and also directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant towards financial loss suffered by him and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in Crl.A.25150/2013. The appeal came to be dismissed on 23.07.2016. Being aggrieved by these two judgments, the accused-revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 7. Heard Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the judgments of both the Courts are contrary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 to law and facts of the case. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. As per the provisions of Income Tax Act, transaction of amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- has to be made by cheque only. Hence, the alleged transaction is not believable. The evidence of DW1 as also the documentary evidence placed by the accused is also not properly appreciated by both the Courts. On these grounds, the learned counsel sought for allowing of this revision petition. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that if the Court would come to the conclusion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts, then this Court can modify the sentence passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the petitioner is a senior citizen. The offence alleged is not against the State, it is only a money transaction. Considering the age and occupation of the accused, the sentence may be modified only to the extent of fine. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 9. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and sought for dismissal of this revision petition. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant [2022 Live Law (SC) 275]. 10. Having heard the arguments of both the counsel and on perusal of material on record, the following points would arise for my consideration : (i) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities? (ii) Whether the revision petitioner has made out a ground to modify the sentence passed by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court? (iii) What order? 11. My answer to the above points are as under : Point No. (i) - Negative Point No. (ii) - Partly affirmative Point No. (iii) - As per final order Point No.(i) 12. I have carefully examined the materials placed before me. The accused has not disputed the issuance of cheques and also the signature on the cheques. It is the specific defence of the accused that there is no transaction between him and the complainant. Accused borrowed a loan from one Prakash who is the son-in-law of the complainant for Rs.20,000/- for the first time and Rs.1,75,000/- for the second time and he discharged the said amounts by paying cash of Rs.1,26,500/- to Prakash and he has also paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque, the same was honoured. It is also submitted that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 as per the request of Prakash he has issued a cheque dated 12.01.2007 for Rs.23,500/- to the complainant, and the same was realised. At the time of receiving loan amount, the accused had issued six signed cheques in favour of Prakash. Though after repayment of the said loan, he assured to return the cheques. However, he did not return the same. But misusing those cheques, the complainant has filed false complaint against this accused under Section 138 of the Act. 13. From a perusal of the materials placed before this Court it is clear that Exs.P1 to P6 are the cheques which were presented for encashment within the prescribed time, the same was returned with a shara “insufficient funds”. Thereafter within the prescribed time, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused, same was duly served on the accused. Despite receiving legal notice, the accused has not sent any reply or paid the cheque amount. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in paras 9 to 15 of the judgment - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 passed in C.C.No.26594/2011. The Appellate Court has also properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any error/illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. 14. With regard to the contention of cash transaction under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act is concerned, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION INVESTIGATION vs KUM. A.B. SHANTHI [(2002) 6 SCC 259] this Court has observed in Criminal Revision Petition 2011/2013 decided on 18.11.2022 that the violation of provision of Section 269SS is not a ground to reject the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act. The concerned authority can initiate proceedings against the concerned for violation of the said provision. Therefore, this argument advanced on behalf of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 revision petitioner cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the negative. Point No. (ii) 15. With regard to modification of the sentence is concerned, the Trial Court has passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and also directed the accused to pay a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the accused and the complainant are friends and hence, the complainant had lent a hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/- for the urgent family necessities. The accused is a senior citizen. Considering the nature of offence and transaction, and the relationship between the accused and the complainant, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to modify the sentence passed by the Trial Court only to the extent of compensation awarded under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 Point No. (iii) 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (a) Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. (b) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.26594/2011 dated 25.10.2013 which is confirmed by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH- 58) in Crl.A.25150/2013 dated 23.07.2016 are confirmed. The sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as under : (i) The sentence passed by the Trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for six months is set aside and modified confirming the sentence only to the extent of payment of fine amount. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27816 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016 (ii) The compensation awarded by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C, is confirmed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14