- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14492 CRL.RP No. 688 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 688 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI V. SANJAY BABU S/O VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 2. SMT. USHA W/O V. SANJAY BABU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.002, 6TH FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK JALAVAYU HEIGHTS APARTMENTS NEAR PLATINUM CITY HMT MAIN ROAD PEENYA 1ST STAGE BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADV.) AND: SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE M SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A NO.111, NEAR WATER TANK CHANNARAYAKANAPALYA NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 073. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVI M.M, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.3.2019 OF CONVICTING PASSED IN CC NO. 13803/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14492 CRL.RP No. 688 of 2022 26TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND SMALL CUASE JUDGE, BENGALURU (SCCH-9) AND JUDGMENT AND ORDERS DATED 24.02.2022 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 872/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 55TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU(CCH-56) ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. 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 R V Shivananda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi M.M, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused in C.C.No.13803 of 2016 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.872 of 2019 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:- 3.1 A private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, came to be filed alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque bearing no.639831 dated 31.12.2015 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, MG Road Branch, Bengaluru in a sum of ₹.2,00,000/- which got - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14492 CRL.RP No. 688 of 2022 dishonoured with an endorsement "Account closed" issued by the accused towards the repayment of the hand loan. 3.2 Learned trial Magistrate on receipt of the complaint completed necessary formalities and after due trial convicted the accused imposed fine of ₹.2,75,000/- of which, sum of ₹.2,70,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and balance sum of ₹.5,000/- towards the defraying expense of the State. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.846 of 2019. 5. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 24.02.2022 dismissed the appeal. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court. 6. Sri R. V. Sivananda Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that both the Courts have not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14492 CRL.RP No. 688 of 2022 properly appreciated the evidentiary value of Ex.D1, which is a complaint wherein the payment of ₹.2,00,000 is found and therefore there was no legally recoverable debt under Ex.P1 / cheque and thus, sought for allow the revision petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgment. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is found that Ex.P1 / cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 10. Learned trial Magistrate raised necessary presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act having noticed that the complainant has discharged initial burden. Defense taken by the accused is that the amount is repaid as is evidenced in Ex.D1. 11. To prove Ex.D1 there is no material evidence on record. Further, cross-examination of PW1 did not yield any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14492 CRL.RP No. 688 of 2022 positive result. Assuming that the accused has repaid the amount as is found in Ex.D1, no prudent person would keep quiet if the cheque is again presented as it would amount to misappropriation of the cheque issued under Ex.P1. 12. Accused has not chosen to lodge any complaint nor take any legal action against the complainant for the alleged misuse of the cheque. Even after engaging the services of an advocate before the trial Magistrate and before the First Appellate Court. 13. Silence of the accused in this regard would be sufficient enough to hold that Ex.D1 is a make believe document and did not discharge the burden cast on the accused to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court were justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14492 CRL.RP No. 688 of 2022 14. Having regard to the limited revision jurisdiction, this Court does not find any good ground to set aside the impugned orders. 15. Hence, the following ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29