- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14720 CRL.RP No. 982 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 982 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H.R. RAVI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE RAGHU 2. SMT H E SHANTHAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O H R RAVI BOTH ARE R/AT KIRANGURU VILLAGE PONNAMPET POST VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT PIN-571216 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHANTHILAL A. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE AMBALA R/AT H NO.3617 KIRIJA ROAD HUNSUR MYSORE DISTRICT PIN-571105 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14720 CRL.RP No. 982 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 HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR IN CRL.A.NO.114/2020 DATED 08.04.2022 MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.361/2018 DATED 17.02.2020 AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.361/2018 dated 17.02.2020 which was modified by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.114/2020 dated 08.04.2022 is the revision petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14720 CRL.RP No. 982 of 2022 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused persons borrowed sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant to meet his immediate financial necessities for construction of house in Gonikoppa Town agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and towards repayment of the cheque, accused persons issued post-dated cheque dated 28.12.2017 drawn on Federal Bank, Gonikoppa Branch. 3.2. Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 3.3. Statutory notice was issued calling upon the accused persons to make good the amount covered under the cheque but they failed to repay the same. 4. Therefore, complainant sought for action against the accused. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14720 CRL.RP No. 982 of 2022 5. After completing necessary formalities, learned Trial Magistrate secured the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 and recorded the plea. Accused persons pleaded not guilty nor filed an application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cross-examination of the complainant. 6. However, learned Trial Magistrate permitted the cross-examination of P.W.1 wherein the complainant got examined himself and placed on record seven documents. 7. In the cross-examination, no doubt, a suggestion is made to the complainant that he is a money lender which has been admitted by P.W.1. 8. Based on the same, learned counsel for the accused argued that cheque did not contain any legally recoverable debt. 9. Learned Trial Magistrate noted the fact that complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and there is no defence evidence placed on record and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and imposed fine of Rs.3,47,500/- of which sum of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14720 CRL.RP No. 982 of 2022 Rs.3,45,500/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.2,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.114/2020. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the sentence by imposing fine of Rs.2,55,000/- of which sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 13. Complainant did not choose to challenge the quantum of sentence of fine reduced by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the answer elicited in the cross-examination of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14720 CRL.RP No. 982 of 2022 P.W.1 and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, Ex.P.1 – cheque belongs to the accused and signature of accused is found in Ex.P.1. These aspects are not disputed by the accused. 17. It is the case of the complainant that accused persons borrowed sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards construction of their house and towards repayment, a cheque came to be issued. 18. Merely on the ground that complainant is a money lender, presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not get rebutted automatically. 19. Pertinently, on record, there is no other rebuttal evidence placed on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14720 CRL.RP No. 982 of 2022 20. Accordingly, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court and sentence modified by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 21. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51