- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20867 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1023 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI POORNESHA K. K. S/O. K. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT KONDLURU, SALURU POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK PRESENT R/AT C/O GIRISH, LIC AGENT BETTAMAKKI, SEEBINAKERE POST THIRTHAHALLI-577 432. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADEEPA B. V., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. GEORGE MARTIS S/O. ANTHONY MARTIS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT INDIRANAGAR SEEBINAKERE POST THIRTHAHALLI-577 432. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.04.2024 MADE IN C.C.NO.317/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., THIRTAHALLI AND ALSO Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20867 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2025 JUDGMENT DATED 07.05.2025 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.56/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE SAID OFFENCES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Pradeepa B.V. learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.317/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.56/2024. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A private complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed alleging - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20867 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2025 commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused is a friend of the complainant who used to visit his house often. 3.2 In the friendship, accused has borrowed loan of Rs.6,95,000/- with an assurance to repay the same in a short span of time and towards the repayment he issued a cheque bearing No. 000199 of Axis Bank, Thirthahalli Branch. 3.3 Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and there were no compliance to the callings of notice and therefore action was sought. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to prove his case, complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and placed on record five documents namely dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20867 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2025 6. As against the material evidence placed on record there is no contra evidence placed by the accused either by examining himself or placing any documentary evidence on record. 7. Cross-examination of PW1 did not yield any positive result so as to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and therefore learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and imposed fine of Rs.7,00,000/- of which sum of Rs.6,95,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant which got confirmed in the Criminal Appeal. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 9. Sri Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would vehemently content that both the Courts have not taken into consideration that there was no legally recoverable debt under Exhibit P-1. 10. Therefore, there was no offence committed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioner and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20867 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2025 11. Per contra, Sri Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of material on record, there is no dispute that Exhibit P-1/cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 14. Admittedly Ex.P.1 came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and there was no compliance to the callings of the legal notice, though the same is duly served. 15. All these factors are sufficient enough to raise the presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act, as the cheque is issued towards the repayment of the hand loan as per the complainant. 16. No doubt, such a presumption is a rebuttal presumption. In order to rebut the presumption there is no material evidence placed on record by the accused. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20867 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2025 17. In the cross-examination of PW-1, suggestions made to PW-1 that he has misused the cheque is denied by PW-1 and therefore, the same was not sufficient to rebut the presumption. 18. Under such circumstances, conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is just and proper which requires no interference by this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 19. Hence, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50