- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35762 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2017 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. 1181 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI M SURESH, S/O MADIVALARA MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAVINAKOPPALU KERI, THYAGARTHI VILLAGE, SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201. …PETITIONER (BY SMT PUSHPALATHA Y., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KASHINATH J D, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K SHIVAPPA S/O BYRAPPA,DEAD BY LRS 1(a) SMT SARASWATHI, W/O K SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 1(b) SRI YOGESH KUMAR, S/O K SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1(c) SRI GANESH KUMAR S, S/O K SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35762 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2017 1(d) SRI AKASH KUMAR, S/O K SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT THYAGARTHI VILLAGE, SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NATARAJ DONKENNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV FOR R1(A TO C) R1(D) IS DECD V/O/D 09.04.2025) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 04.09.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.453/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDIITONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SAGAR AND ALSO CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION IN CRL.A. DATED 11.10.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.10026/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR AS ILLEGAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35762 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2017 ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). 2. The petitioner/ accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,75,000/- on account of dishonour of cheque for Rs.1,75,000/-. The complainant has not filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has raised two contentions: (a) The notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not served on the petitioner/accused. (b) The complaint is not in time. 4. The signature on the cheque is not in dispute. The cheque is pertaining to the petitioner’s account. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35762 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2017 5. The petitioner contends that he had issued a cheque to one Shivakumar who is a common friend of complainant and the accused and Shivakumar has misused the cheque and handed over the cheque to the complainant and the complainant has filed a false complaint stating that he has lent hand loan to the petitioner. The Trial Court rejected the said contention. Appellate Court also rejected the said contention. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the transaction is not established and Trial Court and Appellate Court would not have convicted the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that notice is issued to the address where the petitioner is residing and notices addressed to two different addresses returned with endorsement that accused is not in station. One notice is returned on 08.03.2013 and another is returned on 01.03.2013 and both the notices were issued on 27.02.2013. Thus, he would urge that the accused has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35762 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2017 deliberately avoided to take notices despite intimation given by the postal department. 8. It is also urged that the accused had 15 days time to pay the amount from the date of deemed dervice and since notices issued were returned to the complainant on 02.03.2013 and 13.03.2013 it is to be presumed that the accused had 15 days time to make payment from the date on which the first notice is returned to the complainant and that 15 days time from the date of return of one notice would expire on 17.03.2013 and the complaint is filed on 16.04.2013 and the same is in time. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. The notices are sent to the accused to two different addresses. Both the notices are dated 21.07.2013. The first notice is returned to the complainant probably on 02.03.2013 or thereafter as the postal cover bears the endorsement that on 01.03.2013 petitioner / accused was not in station. The second postal cover bears the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35762 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2017 endorsement that on 08.03.2013 the petitioner was not in station. This leads to the presumption that on 01.03.2013 postman went to the place of the petitioner / accused and left the intimation. Probably the said intimation about the notice was delivered to the complainant on 02.03.2013. 11. This being the position, the complainant is entitled to presume that on till 02.03.2013 accused could have claimed the notice. If that is the case, the accused had 15 days time to make payment from 02.03.2013 which would come to 17.03.2013 and complaint is lodged on 16.04.2013. Thus, the complaint is in time. 12. The contention of the petitioner that the notice is not served cannot be accepted as the postal cover would reveal that the intimation is served on the petitioner which would lead to the conclusion that he was residing in the place where the notice is sent. In addition to that, Court notice is also sent to the same address where the notice is by the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35762 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2017 13. As far as the contention that the cheque is misused by Shivakumar, it is to be observed that the contention is not established as Shivakumar is not examined or no action is taken against Shivakumar. This being the position, both the Courts have rightly held that the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act is not rebutted. 14. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. The amount in deposit be released in favour of respondent No.1(a). Balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2(a) within 30 days from today failing which the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment of three months. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31..