- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI MUNIRAJU K C S/O CHENNAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDALAHALLI POST HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH RAO K, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI VIJAYA PRAKASHA S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 578-11, 1ST FLOOR 43RD CROSS, 1ST A MAIN ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 070 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUDATH B S, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12.09.2018 PASSED BY THE XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.No.22606/2016 AND AFTER REFERRING THE SAME BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT DISMISSING AN APPEAL BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 BENGALURU (CCH-53) VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2022 IN CRL.A.NO.2024/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Rajesh Rao K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Gurudath, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.22606/2016, dated 12.09.2018, on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.2024/2018, dated 04.08.2022, on the file LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), is the Revision petitioner. 3. Facts of the case are as under: 3.1. A private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed with the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 contending that complainant and accused are known to each other for several years and accused has obtained sum of 3,50,000/- from the complainant through Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) with a promise to repay the same and failed to do so and issued a Cheque bearing No.011506 towards the repayment which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’. 3.2. There was no compliance to the callings of notice resulting in action against the accused. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities recorded the evidence of the parties, considered the answers elicited in the cross examination of PW1 and also oral testimony of DW1 to DW3, convicted the accused in a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-, though the cheque is in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. 5. The relevant discussion by the Trial Magistrate in this regard is in paragraphs 15 and 16 which reads as under: 15. It is pertinent to note here that, at this juncture I have gone through the provisions of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act and which contemplate as under:- Bank's slip prima facie evidence of certain facts:- The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has, been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonor or such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved. It is to be noted here that, in the instant case the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions envisaged in section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is to be noted here that, in view of My above findings and without much discussion I hold that, complainant has convincingly proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiate Instruments Act. In view of the same, point No.2 is answered in the Affirmative. 16. It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant in his cross-examination in page No.12 has specifically deposed that after filing the present case the accused had paid him a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. It is further pertinent to note here that, the complainant in cross-examination of the accused in page No.4 has suggested that the accused out of Rs.3,50,000/- is liable to pay him a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. It is pertinent to note here that, from the said evidence of the complainant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 and suggestion made by him to the accused it leads to a conclusion that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-.” 6. Thereafter, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.2024/2018. 7. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraphs 23 to 27 as under: “23. Thus from the provisions of Sec.118(a) and Sec.139 of N.I. Act, it is clear that the Court shall raise presumption in favour of the complainant that he has received the cheque in question for discharge of legal liabilities and cheque was made and drawn for said purpose. This principles is also clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kalamani Tex case as discussed above. The burden is upon the accused to adduced satisfactory evidence to rebut the strong presumption as provided u/Sec.118 and Sec.139 of N.I. Act. Hence, the contention of the Learned counsel for the appellant that the burden is upon the complainant to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt cannot be acceptable one. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 24. The accused in order to rebut the presumption existing in favour of the complainant u/Sec.118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act has adduced his oral evidence as DW.1. DW.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that about 3 years back he has obtained hand loan of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant on interest of Rs.5% p.m. DW.1 has further deposed in his examination-in- chief he had paid the interest amount to the complainant regularly on every month. DW.1 in his examination-in-chief has also deposed that at that time the complainant has obtained two blank signed cheques drawn on Karnataka Bank, Hosakote Branch from him as security for the repayment of hand loan of Rs.30,000/-. DW.1 in his examination- in-chief has also deposed that the accused has misused one of the said blank signed cheques and filed false complaint against him. DW.1 in his examination-in- chief has also deposed that the complainant had transferred of Rs.3,50,000/- to his bank account on 23.07.2016 in order to purchase the land belonging to Rajanna. He in his examination-in-chief has also deposed that he has withdrawn Rs.1,00,000/- from his account and paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the owner i.e. Rajanna as advance amount. DW.1 in his examination- in-chief has also deposed that Rs.2,50,000/- was still in his account. The complainant and his friend Nagaraj has came to in his house and told him that he has mortgaged the property of Yallappa of Yirandahalli and they have insisted to return the money. DW.1 in his examination- in-chief has deposed that as such he has returned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 Rs.2,50,000/- amount to the complainant by way of cash and told that he has given remaining Rs.1,00,000/- to Rajanna as advance amount. DW.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that since the complainant and his friend have made galata with him for demanding remaining Rs.1,00,000/- amount, he has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- to the bank account of the complainant on 19.06.2016. Hence, DW.1 has contended in his examination-in-chief that he has not committed any offences u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act as alleged by the complainant. 25. DW.1 apart from adducing his oral evidence has produced one acknowledgment given by the Hosakote police station regarding the lodging of complaint by his wife against the complainant at Ex.D.1. DW.1 has produced 3 bank challans for having deposited amount to the bank account of the accused at Ex.D.2 to D.5. 26. From the oral evidence of DW.1 its clear that he is having financial transaction with complainant. Except the oral evidence of DW.1, there are no other materials on record to show that he has received only Rs.30,000/- hand loan from the complainant. DW.1 in his examination-in-chief has also deposed that he has not specifically mentioned the date on which, he has received of Rs.30,000/- hand loan amount from the complainant. Further, the accused has not mentioned the specific date when had issued two blank signed cheques to the complainant. The accused has not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 produced any bank statement to show that he has repaid the said hand loan amount with interest to the complainant. DW.1 has further in his examination-in- chief has admitted the fact of deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- amount to his bank account by the complainant on 23.07.2016. The complainant has also produced his bank statement at Ex.P.6 in order to show that he has transferred sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the bank account of the accused on 26.05.2015. DW.1 in his cross- examination has stated that he has not mentioned in his examination-in-chief that on 23.07.2016, the complainant has deposited sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to his bank account. Nothing has been elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 in order to prove the defense of the accused that Rs.3,50,000/- was credited to the account of the accused by the complainant for purchase of land from Rajanna. PW.1 has denied the said suggestion put to him. 27. The accused has examined one Nagaraj as DW.2. DW.2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accused has obtained Rs.30,000/- hand loan from the complainant for the purpose of education of his children and he has given one blank signed cheque to the complainant at that time. He has also deposed in his examination-in-chief that the complainant has deposited Rs.3,50,000/- to the bank account of the accused for purchasing the land from Rajanna and accused has drawn on Rs.1,00,000/- from the said account and gave it to Rajanna. The evidence as DW.2 in the examination-in-chief is contradictory to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 evidence of DW.1. DW.1 in the examination-in-chief has stated that he gave two blank signed cheques to the complainant. Whereas DW.2 in his examination-in- chief the he gave one blank signed cheque to the complainant. DW.2 in his examination-in-chief has stated that the accused has obtained Rs.30,000/- hand loan from the complainant during the year 2015. DW.1 in his examination-in-chief he do not about the fact of deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- by the complainant to the bank account of the accused. DW.2 in his cross- examination has stated that the accused has not repaid the principle loan amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. The oral evidence of DW.2 is not helpful to the accused to prove his defense.” 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 9. Sri Rajesh Rao K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that learned Trial Magistrate had wrongly read the cross-examination of PW1 and did not give deduction to the payments made by the accused though admitted by PW1 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. He would invite the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of PW1 wherein on two occasions; PW1 has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 admitted the payment of the money after the initiation of the criminal proceedings and therefore sought for allowing the revision. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supports the impugned judgments. 12. He would further contend that whatever the payment that has been made after filing the criminal case has been admitted by PW1 as a honest person and the same has been given deduction by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the order of conviction in a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as against the cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- and complainant has not filed any appeal and accepted the decision rendered by the learned Trial Magistrate as a truthful person and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously including the cross examination portion of PW1. 14. In the case on hand, there is no dispute as to the loan paid by complainant to the accused as it has been sent through RTGS and there is a repayment of Rs.1,10,000/- which has been taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 paragraph 16 of the judgment and convicted the accused to pay sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. 15. What has been sought to be emphasized before this Court by the counsel for the revision petitioner is the admission made by PW1. 16. In the further cross examination he has stated that he had agreed as to the payment of the money from the accused to the complainant after filing of the case and the same has been split into the dates. 17. Taking advantage of that aspect, the counsel for the revision petitioner wants to emphasize that there are number of payments made amounting to more than Rs.2.50,000/- which has not been probabilised by placing many material on record. 18. As such, learned Trial Magistrate rightly appreciated the material on record and recorded an order of conviction which has been upheld by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court in the light of the appeal grounds as referred to supra which requires no interference by this court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22837 CRL.RP No. 1326 of 2022 19. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant/respondent under due identification. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59