- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19520 CRL.RP No. 1033 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1033 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI NAYAZ S/O SHAHIN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT M/S V-CARE COMPUTERS, 1ST FLOOR, BENNE RAJAPPA COMPLEX, BAGUR CIRCLE, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-571233 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATHI S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: ARAVIND S/O C M NARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT MAKAN ROAD, SHRAVANABELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-581233 …RESPONDENT (Ms.ARCHANA K.M. AMICUS CURIAE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.09.2018 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.80/2018 AND JUDGMENT DATED 17.04.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, CHANNARAYAPATNA IN C.C.NO.33/2017 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19520 CRL.RP No. 1033 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C No.33/2017, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.80/2018 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be lodged by the complainant against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.2 It was contended that accused and complainant being friends, in the first week of October 2016 accused approached the complainant and requested for financial assistance in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- which was paid by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19520 CRL.RP No. 1033 of 2018 complainant on 05.10.2016. Accused assured to repay the same; but failed to do so. After persistent demands towards repayment of the said sum, accused issued a cheque bearing No.004596 dated 01.01.2017 drawn on Federal Bank, Channarayapatna Branch. 3.3 The said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘account closed’. Thereafter, legal notice was issued which was not complied. 4. Accordingly, complainant has sought for action against the accused. 5. After completing the necessary formalities, presence of the accused was secured by the learned Trial Magistrate. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and placed on record six documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-6 comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal acknowledgment and bank challan. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19520 CRL.RP No. 1033 of 2018 7. As against the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW-1. One Sri Jabiulla, was examined as DW-2. 8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate noted that the oral evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 was not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.80/2018. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. 11. However, sentence was modified by directing the accused to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19520 CRL.RP No. 1033 of 2018 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating in the grounds urged in the revision petition, questioned the validity of the impugned judgment on the ground that complainant does not have the lending capacity. 14. Therefore, complainant lending a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the accused would not arise at all which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts. The conversation recorded in the mobile telephone of the accused which was deposed to by DW-2 is not taken into consideration by both the Courts resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. Per contra, Smt.Archana, learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19520 CRL.RP No. 1033 of 2018 17. On such perusal of the material law on record, the cheque in question marked at Exhibit P-1 and signature found therein is that of the accused. There is no dispute about the acquaintance of the accused with the complainant. 18. Even according to DW-2, on an earlier occasion, accused had borrowed sum of Rs.14,000/- from the complainant. Except that transaction, DW-2 is not having knowledge about any other transaction. 19. Thus, the theory put forward on behalf of the accused that the complainant is a poor person who had no lending capacity and therefore there was no transaction between accused and the complainant would lose its significance. 20. Further, insofar as the lending capacity of the complainant is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023)10 SCC 148 has specifically stated that complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after approving the principles of law enunciated in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan reported in (2010)11 SCC 441. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19520 CRL.RP No. 1033 of 2018 21. No doubt, such a presumption is a rebuttable presumption. 22. In order to rebut the said presumption, oral evidence of D.W.-1 and 2 has been placed on record which has been rightly considered by both the Courts and noted that the said oral evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant and rightly convicted the accused. 23. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while setting aside the compulsory imprisonment ordered by the Trial Court, enhanced the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- which is just and proper and converted the compulsory imprisonment into default sentence, which is advantageous to the accused. 24. Therefore, taking note of these factual aspects of the matter, this Court does not find any good reasons to interfere with the order of the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court. View of this Court is supported by the principles of law enunciated in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19520 CRL.RP No. 1033 of 2018 Kishore S. Borcar and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069. 25. Hence, the following: ORDER Revision Petition dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 71