- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 197 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT BAGHYAMMA W/O. RAMA KRISHNA, AGED ABUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 839/1080, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI, MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT CHARITHA NARAYAN W/O. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 16, B.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROSHAN H.C.., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED ON 29.09.2015 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT BY LEARNED XXII ADDITIONAL Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.5115/2014, THE CONVICTION ORDER GOT CONFIRMED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-53), IN CRI.APPEAL NO.1329/2015 ON 02.12.2017 AND ETC. THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 02.12.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.1329/2015 by LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2015 passed in C.C.No.5115/2014 by XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru convicting the petitioner-accused for offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been affirmed and fine of Rs.3,02,000/- has been reduced to Rs.1,52,000/-. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 3. The case of respondent-complainant before the trial Court was that, the petitioner-accused had purchased the property of the respondent-complainant on 03.09.2012. At the time of registration, there was a short fall of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner-accused requested the respondent-complainant to accept cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- which is post dated cheque bearing No.449934 dated 20.02.2013 drawn on Canara Bank, Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru and assured that petitioner-accused would pay back the amount immediately after dhanurmasa. The petitioner-accused did not meet the respondent-complainant for several months. During January-2013, when respondent- complainant met the petitioner-accused, the petitioner- accused directed the respondent-complainant to present the cheque. When, the respondent-complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, it came to be dishonored with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer' vide memo dated 28.02.2013. The respondent-complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 got issued legal notice on 23.03.2013 to the petitioner- accused calling upon the petitioner-accused to pay the cheque amount. The said notice has been returned with a postal shara 'unclaimed'. Inspite of the said legal notice, as the petitioner-accused not paid the cheque within 15 days, the respondent-complainant has initiated the proceedings against the petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The respondent - complainant was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. The Bank Manager was examined as PW2 and produced Ex.P6 - Bank account statement. Thereafter, PW1 was recalled and Ex.P7 has been marked. Ex.D1 has been marked in cross- examination of PW1. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused did not lead defense evidence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 5. Learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence on record, has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and awarded payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- which is double the cheque amount. In default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 6. The petitioner-accused challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.1329/2015 and the said appeal came to be allowed in-part confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and order of sentence has been modified and the petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,52,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has to be paid to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 respondent as compensation. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment by filing this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, sale transaction between the petitioner and the respondent has been concluded on 03.09.2012 as per Ex.D1 - sale deed and in it there is specific mention that the entire consideration has been paid and no amount is due. The cheque - Ex.P1 given as security prior to the registration of sale deed has not been returned. 8. The petitioner - accused did not give reply to the legal notice as it has not been served and it is returned as 'unclaimed'. Statement of the petitioner - accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after evidence of PW1 and subsequently PW1 has been recalled and thereafter, further Section 313 statement has not been recorded. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 9. The petitioner - accused had earlier submitted that, no defense evidence after Section 313 statement and subsequently, the petitioner - accused has not been given opportunity to lead defense evidence. The petitioner - accused has sought for remanding the matter before the appellate Court to lead defense evidence. Without considering the same, the impugned judgment has been passed. With these, he prays to allow this revision petition and acquit the petitioner - accused. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent - complainant would contend that, as per the sale agreement - Ex.P7, sale consideration was Rs.52,00,000/- and part payment has been made prior to the registration of sale deed - Ex.D1. He further submit that, at the time of sale deed - Ex.D1, a cheque has been issued stating that, there is a short of Rs.1,50,000/- and it is a post dated cheque. Considering the averments of Ex.P7 - sale agreement and Ex.D1 - sale deed, the petitioner - accused is due for the cheque amount. The petitioner - accused - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 has not proved his defense and failed to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Considering the same, the trial Court has convicted the petitioner - accused and trial Court has affirmed the conviction. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records. 12. It is a specific case of the respondent - complainant that there was a sale transaction between the petitioner - accused and respondent - complainant and the sale agreement came to be entered into by them on 06.06.2012 as per Ex.P7 for sale consideration of Rs.52,00,000/- and sale deed came to be registered as per Ex.D1 on 03.09.2012 for Rs.18,00,000/-. At the time of sale agreement - Ex.P7, advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid and same is mentioned in the sale agreement. Subsequently, Rs.12,00,000/- has - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 been paid by cash on 24.08.2012 and the same has been endorsed on the back of first page of the sale agreement - Ex.P7. The respondent-complainant has deposited the said cash of Rs.12,00,000/- in her bank account with the Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd., and the Bank account statement - Ex.P6 produced by PW2 indicate that, she has deposited Rs.12,00,000/- in her account on 24.08.2012. 13. As on the date of registration of sale deed, Rs.8,00,000/- has been paid by way of Demand Draft dated 03.09.2012 and taken into consideration that payment of Rs.10,00,000/- made through cheque dated 06.06.2012 bearing No.704244 which is mentioned in Ex.P7 - sale agreement. Even though, the sale agreement is for Rs.52,00,000/-, sale deed has been registered for Rs.18,00,000/-. 14. The contention of the respondent - complainant that there was a balance amount to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent and for that, a cheque - Ex.P1 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 has been issued. The petitioner - accused has not disputed issuance of cheque as per Ex.P1 and the defense of the petitioner - accused that, cheque has been given prior to sale deed - Ex.D1 as a security for balance amount has not been established. 15. Considering these aspects, the learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the petitioner - accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the appellate Court has rightly re- appreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 16. The petitioner - accused after further cross- examination of PW1 did not make any prayer for leading defense evidence. 17. Earlier, after recording Section 313 statement, the petitioner - accused has submitted that, she had no defense evidence. Therefore, the contention of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25494 CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018 petitioner - accused that no opportunity was provided for leading defense evidence cannot be accepted. 18. The appellate Court has reduced the fine/compensation and the said order of reduction of fine/compensation has not been challenged by the respondent - complainant. Therefore, the said order of reduction of fine/compensation requires to be retained. 19. Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds to allow this revision petition and acquit the petitioner - accused. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30