- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 426 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI. M. R. NATARAJU S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT G.MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, NANAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANABASAPPA MAGADI., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAJASHEKAR S/O BYTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT GANDHINAGARA, TURUVEKERE TOWN AND TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 227. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJEGOWDA.B.V., ADVOCATE SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.R.P FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.01.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.03/2017 ON THE FILE OF Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TURUVEKERE BY CONVICTION THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, AND CONSEQUENTLY SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATE 31.12.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO. 10007 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TIPTUR AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR TRIAL COURT, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Channabasappa Magadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Manjegowda.B.V., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel, Sri.Chandrashekara.K.A., for the respondent. 2. The revision petitioner is an accused who suffered an order dated 27.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.3 of 2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, confirmed in judgment dated 31.12.2022 passed in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023 Crl.A.No.10007 of 2022 by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur. 3. Facts of the case are as under:
In respect of a dishonored cheque, Respondent/ Complainant initiated criminal action by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that, accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- on 21.02.2016 as hand loan, to meet his necessity with a promise to repay the same. However, he repaid a sum of Rs.55,000/- in cash; for the remaining amount, issued a cheque in a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- bearing No.169936 on 04.05.2016 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, Tiptur Branch. The said cheque, on presentation, came to be dishonored with an endorsement "account closed". - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023
Notice issued to the accused demanding the payment of the amount covered under the cheque is not complied and therefore, action was sought.
The learned Trial Magistrate, after completing the necessary formalities summoned the accused and recorded plea. Accused pleaded 'not guilty' and therefore, trial was held.
In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW-1 and placed on record Eight documents, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P8, comprising of original dishonored cheque, bank memo, copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgment, Private complaint and bank endorsements.
In the cross-examination, there is no useful material elicited except suggesting that there is a misuse of the cheque. Thus, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record inasmuch as accused did not check into the witness box nor placed any documentary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023 evidence. Thereafter, the learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as under: "Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby CONVICTED for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for Six months. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as a compensation as provided under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State exchequer as fine amount. His bail bond and surety bonds stands canceled. Office to supply free copy of this Judgment to the accused".
Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.10007 of 2022.
The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material on record dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 31.12.2022. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023
Thereafter, the accused is before this Court in this revision. 4. Sri.Channabasappa Magadi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the defence of the accused has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate and wrongly convicted the accused, which has been mechanically approved by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 5. He further contended that there was no transaction between the complainant and accused and accused is not the relative of the complainant as is contended inasmuch as he is not in a position to name the parents of the accused, which shows that a false plea has been taken by the complainant and when there is no transaction at all, there cannot be any legally recoverable debt covered under Ex.P1, which has been ignored by both - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023 the Courts, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing of the revision petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that Ex.P1-cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. Admittedly, cheque is dishonored with an endorsement "account closed". 8. Further, there is no reply to the legal notice. The complainant has specifically stated that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and returned a sum of Rs.55,000/- in cash and for the balance amount of Rs.2,45,000/-, cheque in question came to be issued. 9. If the case of the accused is to be believed that there is a misuse of cheque, there was no necessity for the complainant to give deduction of Rs.55,000/- out of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023 Rs.3,00,000/- hand loan and the cheque could have been filled up in the entire sum of Rs.3,00,000/- itself. 10. Further, since the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant, the trial magistrate was justified in invoking the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 11. No doubt, such a presumption is a rebuttable presumption. However, to rebut the presumption available to the complainant, there is no evidence at all on record. Suggestions made to the complainant in the cross- examination that the cheque has been misused is not probabilised by placing any material evidence on record. 12. It should be noted that no normal prudent person would keep quiet if a valuable security in the form of a cheque that too in a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- is being misused by the complainant. The silence of the accused in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15833 CRL.RP No. 426 of 2023 this regard is significant enough in exposing the hollowness of the defence that the cheque has been misused. 13. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the learned Trial Magistrate is justified in convicting the accused for want of rebuttal evidence, which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 14. Having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this court did not find any one ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Magistrate so as to admit the revision petition for further consideration. According, the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44