- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20469 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 493 OF 2025 BETWEEN: R. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. R. RUDRAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 811, 9TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, ARAVINDANAGAR, MYSURU - 570 025 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. C. P. VENKATESH S/O. LATE. PANDURANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 202, 7TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 011 …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 02.08.2024 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20469 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2025 HONBLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU, IN CRL.A.NO.429/2023 AND ETC. 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. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent served with the notice of the revision petition, remained absent. 2. Accused who suffered an Order of conviction in CC No.4047/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, confirmed in Crl.A.No.429/2023 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts of the case are as under: 3.1 Respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20469 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2025 Instruments Act stating that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as hand loan to meet his financial needs and to discharge the hand loan amount, issued a Cheque bearing No.587962 which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. 3.2 A legal notice was issued through RPAD on 02.01.2012 which was duly served on the accused, but there was no compliance for the callings of the notice nor there was any reply. Therefore, complainant sought for action. 3.3 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 3.2 In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got himself as PW1 and placed on record five documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P5 comprising of Cheque, Signature of accused, Bank - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20469 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2025 endorsements, Legal notice dated 02.01.2012, postal receipt and postal acknowledgement. 3.3 As against the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW1 and contended that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.50,000/- and he has repaid the major portion of sum of Rs.50,000/- and only a sum of Rs.7500/- was due towards the said loan and the cheque which was given as security at the time of taking the loan of Rs.50,000/-, has been misused by the complainant by filling a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3.4 Learned Trial Magistrate after taking into consideration the oral evidence of both the parties and probative value of the Exs.P1 to P5, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20469 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2025 3.5 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.429/2023. 3.6 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 evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Sri. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that accused had specifically stated before the Court that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.50,000/- as loan and major portion of the loan was repaid and he was only due in a sum of Rs.7,500/- and the cheque which was given as a security at the time of taking the loan of Rs.50,000/- has been misused by the complainant and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20469 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2025 6. Respondent being absent, arguments put-forth on behalf of the accused is considered by this Court. 7. On such consideration of the material evidence on record, Ex.P1 Cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 8. Complainant has stated before the Court that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as the loan and towards the repayment, said cheque came to be issued which was dishonored. 9. Admittedly there is no reply to the legal notice though it was duly served vide Ex.P5. Therefore, Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 10. To rebut the said presumption, accused got examined himself as DW1 and stated that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.50,000/- and he was due only a sum of Rs.7,500/-. The cheque that was issued at the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20469 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2025 time of borrowing a sum of Rs.50,000/- is misused by the complainant is the sum and substance of oral testimony of DW1. 11. In order to substantiate those aspects of the matter, there is no material evidence on record. He introduce a person by name Sri. Shivarame Gowda to establish the transaction between him and the complainant. But said Shivaramegowda is examined as a witness on behalf of the accused. 12. Further, no action has been taken by the accused for the alleged misuse of the cheque which was given as security. 13. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in holding that the oral testimony of DW2 did not rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and rightly convicted the accused. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20469 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2025 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated above evidence on record and applied the finding recorded by the Trial Magistrate that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 15. This Court, with the limited powers of revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter and take an altogether different view than both the Courts. 16. Accordingly, the following Order: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36