- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1313 OF 2022 BETWEEN: ASHOK KUMAR S/O SUNDARA AGED 55 YEARS RA/T SITE NO.254, BLOCK V KRISHNAPURA, KATIPALLA POST SURATKAL MANGALURU TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 030 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: A.S. PAKASH ACHARYA S/O LATE A.R. SHRINIVAS ACHARYA AGED 48 YEARS R/AT BLOCK NO.XI, DOOR NO.131(1) PENSION LANE MADIKEREI TOWN AND POST MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEENABANDHU RAI N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF CRL.A.NO.56/2020 DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU - MADIKERI AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02.12.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.2148/2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MADIKERI BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.I.A.NO.1/2022 FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Mohammed Kaleem for Sri. Lethif B., learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.2148/2013, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.56/2020, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be lodged alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that, complainant and accused are friends. Accused is running a petrol pump in the name of Kalyani Fuels and Services and for his urgent financial needs, he borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant in the month of November 2010 with an assurance that he would repay the same in March 2012. 3.2 Since there was no payment, the same was demanded and a cheque came to be issued in a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 Rs.5,00,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'account closed'. 3.3 Legal notice was issued. There was no compliance to the callings of legal notice and therefore action was sought. 3.4 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore trial was held. 3.5 In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record six documents comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal acknowledgment and reply notice. 3.6 As against the material evidence placed on record, accused examined himself as DW1 and placed on record seven documents comprising of another cheque as Ex.D1 and two endorsements as Exs.D2 and D3, Notice, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 postal receipt, postal acknowledgment and yet another notice. 3.7 The defence that has been taken by the accused was the cheque in question marked at Exhibit P1 was stolen by the complainant and the same has been misused by the complainant. 3.8 To substantiate the same, there is no complaint to the police nor any positive action taken by the accused. 3.9 Taking note of these aspects of the matter learned Trial Magistrate raised the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted the accused and imposed the fine of Rs.5,15,000/-. 3.10 The order of Trial Magistrate was challenged before the First Appellate Court. 3.11 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 parties and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal. 4. Thereafter accused is before this Court in this revision. 5. Sri. Mohammed Kaleem, learned counsel for the petitioner retreating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record especially the oral evidence tendered by the accused and the documentary evidence placed on record which are marked as Exhibits D1 to D6 and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. He would further contend that the complainant had no lending capacity and therefore, the presumption raised on behalf of the complainant cannot be countenanced in law in view of the principles of law enunciated by Baslingappa vs. Mudibasappa reported in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 (2019) 5 SCC 418 and thus sought for allowing the revision of petition. 7. Respondent counsel absent and therefore this Court perused the material on record meticulously and in the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the petitioner. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, Exhibit P1 belongs to the accused and the signature found therein is that of the accused. 9. The defence taken by the accused is the cheque was stolen by the complainant. If it is so, what prevented the accused to take necessary action against the complainant at least after entering appearance before the Court and engaging the services of an advocate is a question that remains unanswered. 10. Further, since there is no dispute that the cheque in question belongs to the and signature found therein is that of the accused, coupled with the oral - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 testimony of the complainant, the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 11. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. Rebuttal evidence in the form of oral testimony of DW1 and coupled with the probative value of Exhibita D1 to D6 was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant in the absence of any positive action taken by the accused with regard to the misappropriation of the cheque. 12. Further, lending capacity of the complainant as is held in the case of Basalingappa as referred supra has no application to the case on hand in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148 and Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar and another reported in 2025 SCC online SC 2069. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19855 CRL.RP No. 1313 of 2022 13. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good reasons to admit the petition for further consideration. 14. Hence, following order: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26