- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12973 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 400 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. K LOKESH S/O KRISHNAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.3, SAI VASAVINILAYA OPP. RATHNA HOMEO CLINIC NEW POLICE STATION ROAD, MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU- 560036 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVYASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARATH KUMAR VINDHYALA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N MANIKANTA S/O LATE S. NAGAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.111, VASAVI MAHAL ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU- 560036 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.N. ARVINDA NAVADA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS 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 ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 20.02.2018 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.54972/2015., AND ETC. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12973 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Kavyashree, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Bharath Kumar Vindhyala, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.N.Arvind Navada, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.54972/2015 dated 20.02.2018 confirmed in Crl.A.No.25032/2018 dated 31.12.2019 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of the dishonored cheque, a criminal prosecution was launched by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12973 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2021 4. Learned Trial Magistrate on completing necessary formalities, recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant who got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record six documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 6. 6. As against the evidence placed on record, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and placed on record two documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2. 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and noted that defence taken filed by the accused that accused has lost the cheque which has been misused by the complainant is not established by placing cogent evidence on record and thereby, raising the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted the accused and imposed fine in a sum of Rs.5,94,000/- which is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12973 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2021 Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.25032/2018. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that accused has lodged the complaint to the police on 09.02.2015 about the loss of cheque, voter ID and other necessary documents for which the jurisdictional police has issued necessary endorsement vide Ex.D.2 and therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt covered under Ex.P.1 and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, Ex.P.1 - cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12973 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2021 13. It is the case of the accused that he lost the cheque. If it is so, how it came to the hands of the complainant is a question that remains unanswered. 14. Assuming that it is the lost cheque, how would the complainant come to know that it is belonging to the accused and his residential address for issue of the legal notice. 15. Further, in respect of Ex.D.1 - complaint to the police, no further action has been taken. 16. Atleast after the accused entered appearance before the learned Trial Magistrate having come to know that lost cheque has been misused by the complainant, no positive action has been taken by the accused against the complainant for the alleged misappropriation of the cheque. 17. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by placing cogent evidence on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12973 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2021 18. Hence, order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper which requires no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 19. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31