- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22420 CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-) IN CRL.RP No. 1016/2025 BETWEEN: JALENDRA Y S S/O MARIYANANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.402/A THIYAOBALD ROAD BESTHAGIRI MYSURU - 570 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE) AND: KISHORE B. S/O BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NEAR SRIRAMNJANEYA TEMPLE M M ROAD BANNUR T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 124 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. MAHADEVASWAMY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22420 CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2025 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.16/2025 DATED 09.04.2025 CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DTD 26.06.2016 IN CC.NO.269/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T.NARASIPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Sharath J.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. Mahadevaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Settlement is not reported. Therefore, matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 3. Petitioner has suffered an order of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.269/2016 confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.16/2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22420 CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2025 4. The facts of the case, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under : 4.1 A private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed by the respondent alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiations Amendment Act by contending that complainant and accused are friends and acquainted with each other for several years and in that acquaintance, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from complainant on 25.11.2015 with a promise to repay the same within three months. After sufficient persuasion accused issued a cheque bearing No.807349, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. There was no reply to the legal notice nor compliance and therefore action was sought. 4.2 Learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance, summoned the accused and recorded the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22420 CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2025 statement of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore trial was held. 4.3 In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself before the Trial Court as PW1 and placed on record four documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P1 to P4 comprising of the dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, office copy of the legal notice and Postal Acknowledgement. 4.4 As against the material evidence placed on record, there is no defence evidence nor any material is placed on record which would be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as such, The Trial Magistrate recorded an order of conviction against the accused, which was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.16/2025, which on merits came to be discussed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22420 CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2025 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 6. Sri. Sharath J.M., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best efforts she could not persuade the client to have an amicable settlement and therefore He would be addressing the arguments on merits. 7. He would also contend that both the Courts have not taken into consideration about the lending capacity of the complainant. Therefore, Order of conviction recorded by both the Courts is incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, Sri. P. Mahadeva Swamy supports the impugned judgment. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22420 CRL.RP No. 1016 of 2025 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by placing on record the oral testimony coupled with Exs.P1 to P4. 11. Pertinently, there is no defence evidence placed on record nor cross-examination of PW-1. 12. Thus, statement made by the complainant on oath remained unchallenged. Further, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record. 13. Hence, the order of conviction recorded by both the Courts needs no interference that too in the limited revisional jurisdiction. 14. Accordingly, the following Order ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 54