- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 933 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. L.G. SHAM S/O SRI. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NEAR SRIRAMA TEMPLE BEHIND PIG FARM SURESH HOUSE, LAKKUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563 130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B. NAYANACHARI S/O SRI. BASAVACHARI, R/AT SAMETHENAHLLI VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN 560067 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D.V.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.9342/2018 DISPOSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU DISPOSED OFF ON 29.08.2019 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.115/2019 DISPOSED OFF BY THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU CITY ON 23.01.2021 AND 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 H.Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.V.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.9342/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed in Crl.A.No.115/2019 is the revision petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 3. The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 on the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused has borrowed sum of Rs.50,000/- as hand loan and towards the repayment of the said loan amount issued a cheque bearing No.101037 dated 03.08.2017 drawn on Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Lakkur Branch, which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient". 4. A legal notice came to be issued demanding the payment. A reply was sent vide Ex.D1 contending that the loan amount is already repaid. Therefore, action was sought. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 5. Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record seven documents which are exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P7 comprising of cheque, bank endorsement, postal receipt, acknowledgment, legal notice, reply and RPAD cover. 7. As against the material evidence placed on record, accused got himself examined as DW.1 and placed on record Bank Statement marked at Ex.D1. 8. Learned trial Magistrate thereafter, heard the arguments of the parties, disbelieved the defence taken by the accused that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was already been repaid. Thus, based on material evidence convicted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.115/2019. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal inter alia upholding in para Nos.28 to 39 as under: "28. It is the specific case of the complainant that, accused being a known person to him has obtained hand loan of Rs.50,000/- for domestic and urgent family necessities by issuing postdated cheque. Further, he had agreed to repay the same within 3 months without fail. After lapse of 3 months, the complainant requested to repay the said hand loan and finally, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.101037 dated 03.08.2017 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank. Further, the accused/appellant assured that the cheque will be honored. So, as per the instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment through his Banker. The said cheque was dishonored for the reasons “funds insufficient” when it was presented. The complainant issued legal notice through his counsel. Inspite of service of legal notice, the accused fails to make repayment. The defence set up by the appellant now is not at all believable one. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 29. It is not the case of the accused that no such demand notice was issued by the complainant has been served to him. As could be seen, there is no such defence before the trial court. The appellant has mainly contended that, during the course of trial, the respondent had no sources of income for lending money of such huge amount to the appellant. 30. Keeping in view the rival contentions of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the evidence led in by the complainant party to answer the points in controversy. Obviously, the initial burden is on the complainant to prove that, the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability. In this regard, the complainant has been examined as P.W.1 before the trial court. He has deposed and reiterated the contents of complaint allegation by way of examination in chief through affidavit as provided under law. He has produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 documents. 31. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the defence counsel, it is suggested that, on 09.08.2017, through cheque bearing No.101038, amount has been credited to his account and the same suggestion is denied by P.W.1. It is elicited that P.W.1 has no problem to file his statement of account. It is suggested that, accused has given two cheques to the complainant for security purpose for the loan taken of Rs.50,000/- and the same suggestion is categorically denied by P.W.1. 32. P.W.1 has admitted and stated in the cross- examination made by the learned counsel for the accused before the trial court that, he does not have any other transaction except Rs.50,000/-. Except this, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. 33. The accused has lead his evidence before the trial court as D.W.1. He has deposed and denied the contents of the allegations as provided under law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 34. During the trial, D.W.1 has deposed that, he has received loan of Rs.50,000/- in the month of May, 2017. Further deposed that, for the security he had issued cheques drawn on Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Lakkur Branch. Further deposed that, he has received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant by way of cash and agreed to repay the same within 3 months. After 3 months, the complainant came to his house and asked another cheque. He has given another cheque to the complainant. Further deposed that, the said cheque is honored. Further deposed that, the complainant has not returned the earlier cheque. 35. During the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the complainant counsel, he has admitted that, Ex.P.1 is pertaining to his account and Ex.P.1 (a) is his signature. The said Ex.P.1 is issued to the complainant. Further admitted that, he has received legal notice from the complainant counsel in respect of dishonor of cheque and he has replied to the said legal notice. Further admitted that, he has paid amount for the purchase of bricks. 36. On scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, it is clear that the cheque Ex.P.1 belongs to accused/appellant and the signature on Ex.P.1. 37. On careful perusal of the defence of the accused, it can be gathered that, the accused has taken inconsistent defence in respect of the receipt loan and repayment of loan amount to complainant. 38. On perusal of the reply notice Ex.P.6 issued by the accused to the complainant counsel, accused has admitted the friendship. But, at one stretch in para No.1 to 3, he has totally denied the contents of legal notice and denied the receipt of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. In another stretch in para No.4 of the reply notice, he has taken specific contention that, my client has availed loan of only Rs.10,000/- from your client, towards security purpose, you have obtained a blank signed cheque from my client which is the subject matter of this alleged - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 notice. My client has repaid the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- to you and requested you to return the cheque of my client, for which your client kept on delaying to return the same. To be on the safer side, my client has given a letter to his Banker to stop the payment of the cheque. 39. During the trial, the accused has finally admitted that, he had received loan of Rs.50,000/- in the month of May, 2017. For the security, he has issued one cheque drawn on Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Lakkur Branch and further the specific defence of the accused is that, on request of the complainant, he has given another cheque and subsequent cheque is honored on 09.08.2017 Rs.50,000/- has been debited from the account of the accused as per Ex.D.1. After honour of subsequent cheque, he requested the complainant about return of earlier cheque, but, the complainant has mis-utilized the earlier cheque and filed the present case." 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 11. Sri H.Manjunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly considered the plea of discharge of the loan amount in proper perspective and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 12. Per contra, counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgment. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the case of hand, issuance of cheque at Ex.P1 and same being dishonoured for want of funds is not in dispute. Likewise, the signature of the accused in Ex.P1 is not in dispute. 14. According to the complainant, same is issued towards the repayment of the hand loan. Therefore, complainant having got examined as P.W.1 and marking documents has discharged the initial burden to raise the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 15. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the presumption, the accused has stepped in to the witness box and got examined himself and report before the Court that the hand loan amount was repaid. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 To establish the same, he placed on record his bank account statement marked at Ex.D1. As could be seen from Ex.D1, the entry therein is a payment which has been made to the complainant on 09.08.2017. 16. However, in the reply notice it has not been mentioned that said payment is towards the amount covered under Ex.P1. Learned trial Magistrate had not dealt the said aspect in detail. But the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court carried out a detailed discussion as referred to supra about the plea of discharge and has confirmed with the findings recorded by the trial Magistrate that plea of discharge is not proved by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 17. On reappreciation of material on record it would not be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the order of conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14820 CRL.RP No. 933 of 2022 Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court that too in the limited revisional jurisdiction. 18. The learned trial Magistrate has imposed fine of Rs.60,000/- as against the said amount and the learned judge in the First Appellate Court maintained the same. 19. Thus, this Court do not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 20. Hence, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29