- 1 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 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.1232 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI M. CHANNEGOWDA S/O MUNIREDDY AGED 41 YEARS, OCC: KOOLI R/AT VENKATENAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBALI AND POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 562 135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. MUNIRAJ, ADV.) AND: SRI S. SHANKAR S/O SHAMANNA AGE 37 YEARS R/AT KAGGALAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBALI AND POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-571 501. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 30.07.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.294/2011 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI IN CRL.A.NO.15009/2016 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP. WITH COSTS. - 2 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 THIS REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The accused has preferred this revision petition against the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30th June, 2016 password in CC No.294 of 2011 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli (for short hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), which is confirmed by Judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15009 of 2016 on the file of V additional District & Sessions, Judge, Devanahalli (for short hereinafter referred as "the appellate Court). 2. The parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused has availed loan of Rs.3,40,000/- from him and towards repayment of the same, he has issued two cheques (1) No.006262 dated 20th January 2010 for - 3 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 Rs.1,80,000/- and (2) 006263 dated 15th February, 2010 For Rs.1,60,000/-. When the complainant presented the above cheques to his Bank for encashment, complainant received an endorsement dated 27th March, 2010 stating payment stopped by the drawer. Complainant issued legal notice on 20th April, 2010 calling upon the accused to pay cheque amount of Rs.3,40,000/-. Notice was duly served to the accused on 22nd April, 2010. Despite, accused did not pay the amount. Hence complainant lodged the complaint. 4. After taking cognizance, case was registered in CC No.294 of 2011, Summons was issued. In response to summons, accused appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, complainant examined one witness as PW1 and marked eight documents as Exhibits P1 to P8. On closure of complainant's side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against him, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the - 4 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.3,45,000/-, in default of payment of amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is further ordered that, out of the amount, Rs.3,40,000/- be paid to the complainant as compensation. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused preferred appeal before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.15009 of 2016. The same came to be dismissed on 2nd November 2017. Being aggrieved by both the Judgments, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 6. Sri V Muniraj, learned Counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court, is illegal and contrary to evidence on record. He would submit that PW1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he has not produced any material to indicate that he had necessary funds as on the date making payment. In the absence of any other document under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JOHN K. ABRAHAM v. SIMON C ABRAHAM - 5 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 AND ANOTHER reported in (2014)2 SCC 236 and in the case of K SUBRAMANI v. K DAMODAR NAIDU reported in (2015)1 SCC 99, the impugned judgment conviction and order on sentence is liable to be set aside. He would submit that both the Courts have committed an error observing that the burden is on the accused to prove his liability to pay the amount due under the cheque in question. The trial Court has wrongly mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Judgment as to signatures on Exhibits P1 & P2, but in the cross examination, DW1 has not admitted his signatures and in the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that signatures are not by the petitioner. The learned Counsel would further submit that the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is barred by time and is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that he is running Real Estate business and is also an agriculturist, but he has not produced any document like income-tax returns to show the alleged transaction nor has produced any document to show his financial capacity to lend the amount. On all these grounds he sought for allowing the revision petition. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: - 6 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 1) KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT v. DATTATRAYA G. HEGDE - AIR 2008 SC 1325; 2) ANSS RAJASHEKAR v. AGUSTUS JEBA ANANTH (2020)5 SCC 348; 3) BASALINGAPPA V. MUDIBASAPPA (2019)5 SCC 418; 4) M.S. NARAYANA MENON @ MANI v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER - AIR 2006 SC 3366; 5) B. INDRAMMA v. SRI ESHWAR ILR 2009 KAR 2331. 7. Despite notice duly served, respondent remain absent and underrepresented. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the point that would arise for my consideration is "Whether the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, which is concerned with the appellate Court is perverse, capricious, illegal, and suffers from legal infirmities? 9. I have examined the materials placed before me. PW1 has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Exhibit P1 is the cheque dated 20th January, 2010 for Rs.1,80,000/- issued by accused in favour of the complainant, S Shankar. Exhibit P2 is the cheque dated 15th February, 2010 for Rs.1,60,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. Both Cheques were presented within the - 7 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 prescribed time to the Bank for realisation. The bank authorities issued endorsement dated 27th March, 2010 stating “Payment stopped by the drawer”. On 20th April 2010, complainant issued legal notice to the accused to pay the Cheque amount. The same was served on the accused on 22nd April 2010. Accused, in spite of receipt of notice, has not paid the cheque amount within the prescribed time. Hence, the complainant lodged complaint on 5th June 2010. All these materials makes it clear that the complainant has complied with all the mandatory provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, before filing the complaint. 10. Accused has set up defence that the two Cheques were lost about four months ago at Devanahalli and in that regard, he gave a letter to the Bank on 20th October, 2009 for stop-payment of subject cheques. The accused-Revision petitioner has not produced the letter submitted to the bank so as to prove the same. Accused has produced only the bank statement Exhibit D1, which does not disclose as to reasons for stop-payment. The accused has also not sent any reply to the legal notice despite duly served on him. During the course of cross-examination, DW1 has clearly admitted that he has received notice and he has sent reply through advocate. - 8 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 Accused has not produced the said copy of reply notice or the postal receipt and acknowledgement. The accused has not taken any legal steps against the complainant as to misuse of the disputed cheques. On the contrary, during the course of cross-examination of PW1, it was suggested that the complainant being the relative of the accused, has stolen the cheques. The same is denied by PW1. Suggestion made by the accused Counsel is not consistent with the evidence of DW1. Even the trial Court has observed in the Judgment that during the course of cross-examination, DW1 has stated that he did not inform the Advocate that cheques were stolen by the complainant. However, the learned Counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW1 suggesting that cheques were stolen by the complainant. 11. DW1 has not whispered anything in his examination-in-chief that the complainant has no official capacity to lend the amount to him. In his examination-in- chief, he has stated that he has lost cheques No.006262 and 006265. Except this, he has not deposed anything or replied to the legal notice issued by the Counsel for the complainant. For the first time, before this Court, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the complainant has no - 9 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 financial capacity to lend the loan amount and he is not an income tax assessee. The cheque amount is only for Rs.3,40,000/-. Had the accused replied to legal notice contending that the complainant has no financial capacity to lend the amount, complainant would have produced relevant materials before the Court. Even during the cross-examination, he has suggested that the complainant had no money to pay. But in this regard, PW1 has clearly stated that he has sold the land measuring 19½ gunta, which was standing in the name of his mother. It is very much clear that accused had taken multiple defence only to avoid the liability to pay the cheque amount. Hence the defence set-up by the accused cannot be accepted. Both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts, and passed the Judgment of conviction and sentence. 12. I have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the Counsel for the revision petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner will not enure to the benefit of the revision petitioner. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any error/legal infirmities in the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court - 10 - CRL.RP No.1232 OF 2017 which is confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, I answer the point that arose for consideration, in the negative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Revision petition is dismissed; ii) Judgment of convention and order on sentence dated 30th June, 2016 passed in CC No.294 of 2011 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, which is confirmed by Judgment and Order dated 02nd November, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15009 of 2016 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, is confirmed; iii) Registry to send the trial Court record along with the copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn