- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1078 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: H.G. SUMAN S/O H.B. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A HALASE VILLAGE AND POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 122. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. N. VANDANA, ADV., FOR SRI HARISHA A.S, ADV.) AND: SMT. T.S. ANASUYA W/O H.B. THAMMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS REPT BY HER GPA HOLDER Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 H.B. THAMMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/A B HOSAHALLI VILLAGE BANAKAL HOBLI MUDIGERE TLAUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 122. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.JUDGE (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE) FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.17/2022, AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 06.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PR.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MUDIGERE IN C.C.NO.287/2013, AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGES WITH WHICH THEY STOOD CHARGE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Ms. N. Vandana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suyog Herele E, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The accused, who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, 'the N.I.Act'] in C.C.No.287/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.17/2022, is the revision petitioner. 3. The facts in the nutshell which are at most necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C with the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 contending that the complainant owns a coffee plantation land known as "Kalpatharu Thota" wherein robusta coffee plants are grown. 3.2 Accused No. 2 namely, Mr. M. K. Shivaprakash used to purchase coffee grown in the complainant's estate and during the month of February 2011, accused No. 2 introduced accused No.1 to the complainant stating that he is also into coffee business in the name of "Mudigere Commodities" situated at Mudigere and he will purchase coffee for and on behalf of accused No. 2. 3.3 On 16.02.2011, accused No.1 lifted 100 bags of robusta cherry seeds in the lorry bearing No.KA-18/A-6323 through Kumara and made the payment towards the value of the coffee through Cheque No.590859 dated 22.02.2011 drawn on SBI, ADB, Mudigere Branch. Again on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 03.03.2011 accused No.1 lifted 200 bags of robusta coffee which was transported through lorry bearing No.KA.18/A.7860 and towards the payment of the value, cheque bearing No.590861 in sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was drawn on SBI, ADB, Mudigere. On 18.03.2011, accused No. 1 again lifted 100 bags of robusta cherry coffee seeds and the same was transported through the lorry bearing No.KA.18/A.6323 and towards the payment of the said coffee seeds, a cheque bearing No.590865 dated 29.03.2011 in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was drawn on SBI, ADB, Mudigere. 3.4 The complainant presented those cheques with the Bank for collection and to utter surprise of the complainant, all the cheques were dishonored. The complainant approached the accused No.1 and immediately he issued - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 another cheque bearing No.810947 on 03.06.2011 for a sum of Rs.2,65,400/- drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkamagaluru Branch. The said cheque was towards the loss sustained by the complainant on account of the delay as well. Again the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement "funds insufficient" on 09.08.2011. A legal notice was issued and there was no compliance with the notice and therefore, complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. The trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, power of attorney holder of the complainant by name Mr. H. B. Thammanna gowda was examined as PW1 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 placed on record 17 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibit - P1 to Exhibit - P17 comprising of General Power of Attorney holder, cheque, bank endorsement, legal notice, Letter, account mandate, name and signature in Canara Bank application form, pan card and voter ID. 6. As against the material evidence placed on record, accused got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record a notebook which was marked as Exhibit D1. 7. Learned trial Magistrate on concluding the recording of evidence, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, noted that the presumption available to the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act stood unrebutted and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and directed the accused to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,30,800/- and in default of payment - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and the same was also ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.17/2022. 9. 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 of the accused by a considered judgment dated 05.07.2022. Hence, accused is before this Court. 10. Ms. N. Vandana, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently contend that the complainant is a stranger to the accused and the cheque that has been issued in favour of somebody else has been misused by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 the complainant and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. She would further contend that there is no transaction between the accused and the complainant and as such, there is no liability caused under Exhibit - P1, which has been suppressed by the complainant while weaving a false story in the form of a complaint which has not been rightly appreciated by the learned trial Judge and wrongly convicted the accused. 12. She also contends that probative value of Exhibit - D1 is not taken into consideration coupled with the oral testimony of the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned judgments and oppose the revision grounds. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 14. He would further contend that material evidence placed on record is rightly appreciated by the learned trial Magistrate and the argument put forth on behalf of the accused that probative value of Exhibit - D1 is not considered is incorrect inasmuch as the learned trial Magistrate did consider the same in paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the matter on record, admittedly Exhibit - P2 - cheque belongs to the complainant. According to the complainant, the said cheque in a sum of Rs.2,65,400/- is issued which is to the value of the 100 bags of the coffee and the loss that has been caused on account of dishonour of the cheque which was issued earlier. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 17. In Exhibit - D1, there is a note on 18.03.2011 and the same is extracted in Paragraph No.16 of the order of the first appellate Court. In the said note, 100 bags of robusta, 50 kg bag and 5000 kg bag of coffee were transported in a lorry bearing No.KA-18/A-6323 which was transported to Mudigere Commodities proprietor. The cheque number and the value of coffee mentioned by the person who lifted the coffee, who is none other than the worker of the accused by name Mr. Manjunath. 18. On consideration of Exhibit - D1 coupled with the oral testimony of PW1 and other relevant documents, it is crystal clear that the transaction stands established. 19. Assuming for a moment that it is the liability of Mr. Shivaprakash for which the accused is not liable, it was always open for the petitioner to cite Mr. Shivaprakash as a witness to establish the case that the coffee is lifted for and on behalf of Mr. Shivaprakash. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 20. Admittedly, no such attempt is made by the accused to establish that there is no privity of transaction between the complainant and the accused. Thus, the material on record was sufficient enough to raise the presumption as is contemplated under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. 21. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the presumption, oral testimony of DW1 and Exhibit - D1 was not sufficient. On the contrary, the noting in Exhibit - D1 would fortify the case of the complainant. 22. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the finding of guilt recorded by trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is just and proper and requires no interference in this revision petition having regard to the limited scope of provisional jurisdiction. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19746 CRL.RP No. 1078 of 2022 23. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RB