- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23878 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1443 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: KUMARA S/O SINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.136, 5TH A CROSS SUPALAMMA TEMPLE ROAD BIDARAHALLI BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 085 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SADANAND G. SHASTRI, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: ARUN KUMAR G BADECHIKAR S/O LATE GOVIND AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/@ NO.98, NEXT TO ANNAPURNESHWARI TEMPLE HAGGADURU, WHITE FIELD BENGALURU-560 066 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.AKRAM PASHA, ADVOCATE -ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.10.2018 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.181/2017 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.01.2017 PASSED BY THE XXI ADDL.C.M.M., Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23878 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2018 BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26190/2011 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER None appears for the respondent. 2. This Court, having heard the arguments of the counsel for the revision petitioner on the last date of hearing, perused the records. 3. Revision Petitioner has suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.26190/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine of Rs.2,30,000/- which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.181/2017. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused preferred this revision petition and failed to prosecute the matter properly. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23878 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2018 5. Learned counsel who represents the revision petitioner retired from the case. Thereafter, Sri Sadanand G. Shastri, learned counsel has been appointed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court as amicus curiae to assist the Court in disposing of the matter. 6. Sri Sadanand G.Shastri, learned amicus, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that both the Courts erred in law in not properly appreciating the material evidence on record, especially the oral testimony of DW-1 which was sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and wrongly convicted the accused and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. In this regard, this Court bestowed its best attention to the cross- examination of DW-1. In the said cross- examination, D.W.1 has specifically admitted that the signature found on the summons issued by the Court on 09.03.2015 is his signature. The said signature tallied with the signature found in the cheque which was dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23878 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2018 8. Since there is a presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, defence evidence is considered by the learned Trial Magistrate wherein he has stated that he has not received the legal notice and he has no transaction with the complainant. 9. He has further stated that he has got acquainted with the complainant through one Wajid, who was known to the wife of the complainant. 10. Further, it is his case that he had borrowed the money. But he cleared sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and requested the blank cheque issued to the complainant to be returned. 11. To establish that he has repaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, no material evidence is forthcoming on record. 12. In other words, the oral testimony of DW-1 was thus not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant and therefore, recording of an order of conviction by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23878 CRL.RP No. 1443 of 2018 needs no interference, that too, in the limited powers of revisional jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. The assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae is placed on record with appreciation. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 67