- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 714 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SUDESHA S/O. SRINIVASA MUDAMBADITHAYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RES/AT KUVECHARU HOUSE, BAJATHOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHISH RAM .D AND SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY .D, ADVOCATES) AND: VIDHYADHARA S/O VAJRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OWNER OF PADMAPRIYA PETROL PUMP, 34-NEKKILADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEEPAK WAGLE FOR SRI. KESHAVA BHAT .A, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A.NO.5049/2018 DATED 16.04.2019 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 D.K., IN SO FAR AS CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IN CRL.C.NO.323/2013 DATED 12.10.2018 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR D.K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this revision petition, the revision petitioner/accused has assailed the judgment dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, Sitting at Puttur, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.5049/2018, wherein the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Puttur, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in C.C.No.323/2013 dated 12.10.2018. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 The complainant and accused are known to each other. The accused purchased diesel from the petrol pump of the complainant on credit and he is in due a sum of Rs.6,10,650/-. For repayment of the same, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.016167 drawn on South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank, (SCDCC Bank) Uppinangady Branch dated 09.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his Banker, the same was returned with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds' dated 11.07.2013. Subsequently, the complainant intimated the same to the accused, however, the accused failed to repay the amount. As such, the complainant issued legal notice dated 01.08.2013. The said notice was duly served to the accused. Despite, the accused neither replied to the notice nor repaid the said amount. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') before the Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 4. In order to prove the case before the Trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The accused also examined himself as DW.1 and marked 1 document as Ex.D1. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as under: "ORDER Acting U/Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,50,000/-, of which Rs.3,40,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant in term of Section 357(1) pg Cr.P.C., in default of payment of fine by the accused, he shall suffers simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The rest of the amount is remitted to state towards the cost of the Court.. The bail bond and suretys bonds of the accused bond stands cancelled." 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused approached the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5049/2018. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 by confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard Sri. Ashish Ram D., for Sri Krishnamurthy D., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Deepak Wagle, for Sri Keshav Bhat A., learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that the judgments under this appeal suffer from perversity and illegality inasmuch as the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. He contended that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the legally enforceable debt from the accused by placing reliable documents or evidence. According to him, the accused is a total stranger to the complainant and in the year 2007, the accused lost his handbag, which contained cheque leafs. To that effect, he lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police as per Ex.D1 and an endorsement was issued by the Police. Subsequently, one of the said cheque was misused by the complainant for unlawful gain. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 9. He further contended that the legal requirements of Section 138 of N.I. Act was also not fulfilled, since the legal notice issued by the complainant was not served to the accused. Additionally, he contended that, in the cheque-Ex.P1, the signature and handwriting of the name of the payee differs. As such, it is clear that the complainant has misused the said cheque, which had lost by the accused during the year 2007. With these submissions, he prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on meticulously examining the entire evidence on record passed well-reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference by this Court. He contended that, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the cheque lost by the accused in the year 2007 was misused by the complainant in the year 2013 for unlawful gain. Ex.D1 filed by the accused does not reflect any details of the cheque-in-question-Ex.P1. Moreover, it is stated in Ex.D1 that the accused is owner of Rathnashree Earth Movers. Further, it is elicited in the testimony of the complainant that there are documents pertaining to purchase of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 petrol from the petrol pump of the complainant by the accused, who being the owner of Rathnashree Earth Movers and owning Hitachi and JCB. In such circumstances, it is clear that the accused owing a sum of Rs.6,10,650/- and to repay partial amount, he has issued this cheque-in-question. 11. He further contended that the notice issued by the complainant to the residence of the accused is served to him, however, one more notice issued to his office is returned with an endorsement "Unclaimed" and this aspect of the matter is dealt in detail by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and rightly convicted the accused for the offence he had been charged. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the sole point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.323/2013?" 13. As could be gathered from records, the signature of the accused on cheque-in-question-Ex.P1 is not in dispute. However, it is the specific contention of the accused that he lost - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 Ex.P1 along with other cheques in the year 2007 while he was traveling in a place called Bandady and Ramanagara and he had lodged a complaint before the Uppinangady Police Station to that effect as per Ex.D1. On careful perusal of Ex.D1, the accused has not mentioned the details of the cheque leafs, which were in his bag. Moreover, he had not intimated the said aspect to his Banker. 14. Be that as it may, in Ex.D1 it is stated that accused is the owner of Rathnashree Earth Movers. He further admitted that, his brother also involved in the same business and having Hitachi and JCB. Admittedly, complainant is the owner of petrol pump namely, Padma Vidya Petrol Pump. According to the complainant, the accused used to purchase petrol for his Hitachi and JCB from the petrol pump of the complainant on credit basis and he was owing a sum of Rs.6,10,650/- and for the part payment of the same, the accused issued cheque-in- question. In the cross-examination of the accused, it is admitted by the accused that in Ex.D1 it is stated that he is the owner of TATA Hitachi. Further, he also admitted that he is the owner of the dump trucks (tipper lorries). Thus, the transaction - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 between the complainant and accused appears to be probable one and the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no such legally enforceable debt from the accused cannot be accepted. 15. Though the initial presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttal one, nevertheless, it is settled position of law that such initial presumption can be rebutted exclusively by placing probable defence. In the instant case, the accused failed to rebut the initial presumption by placing probable defence. As discussed supra, Ex.D1 cannot be relied for the simple reason that the same is of the year 2007 and transaction is of the year 2013 and the accused has not given any complaint before his Banker for lost of Ex.P1. 16. The second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the legal notice issued by the complainant is not served to him is also not acceptable for the reason that, on perusal of cross-examination of accused, he has categorically admitted that the legal notice issued to his residence is served, however, one more legal notice issued to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24589 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2019 his office though served, but 'Unclaimed'. Further it is also pertinent to observe that, in the cross-examination of accused, he has categorically stated that one more cheque bounce case is pending against him and he also filed other four cases against different persons. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that Ex.D1 is a created document for the purpose to defend in all cases appears to be probable. In that view of the matter, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly passed the impugned judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31