- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.225 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. M/S BEST LADIES P G No. 12, VEERU HOMES, CHOWDAIAH BLOCK, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU, PIN -560 032, BY ITS PROPRIETOR M UDAY 2. M UDAY S/o LATE DR. M CHANDRASHEKAR, R/AT No. 453, 6TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGLAURU – 560010 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI BALAKRISHNA K, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT LEELAVATHI W/o ROCHIRAM, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS No.15, 1ST FLOOR, DNS PLAZA, SHIVANANDHA CIRCLE, KUMARA KRUPA PARK, BENGLAURU – 560 020. REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI. N MANJUNATH SINCE DIED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 1(a) SMT.HEMA VASHDEV D/o LATE LEELAVATHI AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT No.22, GROUND FLOOR, I MAIN, 2ND CROSS, PALACE CROSS ROAD CHAKARAVARTHY LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 001 1(b) SRI RAMESH KUMAR ROCHIRAM S/o LATE LEELAVATHI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT No.137/1, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KESHAVAMURTHY.M.C, ADVOCATE -ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED XV A.C.M.M, BANGALORE PASSED IN THE JUDGMENT ON 16.11.2016 IN C.C.No.5534/2015 (ANNEXURE A) CONVICTING THE ACCUSED/THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL No.1466/2016 DATED 01.01.2018 (ANNEXURE 'B') CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AS UNSUSTAINABLE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Balakrishna K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.5534/2015, dated 16.11.2016, on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which got confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1466/2016, dated 01.01.2018, on the file of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein it is contented that accused borrowed sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 14.05.2012 and on 12.10.2012. The payments have been made through cheques on 12.10.2012 and 14.05.2012 drawn on ICICI Bank, Kumar Krupa Branch, Bengaluru by executing a on- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 demand promissory note and receipt. Towards the said loan, accused refunded sum of Rs.50,000/- and for the balance amount of Rs.9,50,000/- he issued two cheques in a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Those cheques on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’. 4. A statutory notice came to be issued by the complainant calling upon the accused to make out the amount covered under the cheques which was replied by the accused stating that all the loan amount has been repaid by the accused and there is no liability on the accused and cheques which were issued as security have been misused by the complainant. Left with no alternative, complaint sought for action through the private complainant. 5. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, recorded the plea of the accused by securing his presence. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held. 6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the power of attorney holder of the complainant by name - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 Manjunath N, got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record 17 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17, comprising of authorization letter, dishonored cheques, bank endorsement, on demand promissory note, copy of the legal notice, postal receipts, postal acknowledgment card, bank passbook, income tax return and bank statement. 7. As against the material evidence placed on record, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and a witness by name Narendra Chawda as D.W.2. 8. On record, accused placed five documents in support of his stand which were exhibited and marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5, comprising of reply notice, bank statement, certified copy of the proceedings in C.C.No.18146/2015 and various cases filed in different Courts. 9. Learned Trial Magistrate after recording the accused statement and on cumulative analysis of the material evidence on record convicted the accused inter alia holding in paragraphs 17 and 18 of its judgment as under and directed the accused to pay fine of Rs.5,80,000/- after giving deduction to sum of Rs.3,70,000/-. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 “17. Though the accused has contended that entire amount was paid but there is no records to upheld the contention of the accused. In Ex.D.1, no doubt there is a recital that on 26.2.2013 and on 13.3.2013, there was a withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- each, but these recitals does not demonstrates that amount have been paid to the complainant. The question before the Court is when the accused is able to make the payment through cheques as per Ex.D.1 which is stated above, what made him to pay the amount by way of cash. Therefore, payments made by way of cash as alleged by the accused is not proved. On perusal of the entire cross-examination directed to the complainant futile exercise was made suggesting that entire amount was paid, but to substantiate the same, there is no records. Under such circumstances, contention of the accused with regard to the payments made only to the extent of Rs.3,80,000/- is to be accepted without hesitation. 18. So-far as contention of the accused with regard to the filing of various cases as per Ex.D.3, 4 and 5 does not have any bearing on the merits of this case. Since, the payment of Rs.10 lakhs by way of cheque is admitted by the accused and also reflected by way of documents. The scope and purview of Section 138 NI Act, which is conferred on this Court is whether the cheque is issued for discharge of the liability or not. Therefore, Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.5 does not come to the rescue of the accused.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 10. After giving deduction to the payment which was established by the accused. Out of sum of Rs.5,80,000/-, sum of Rs.5,70,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.1466/2016. 12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records noted that despite granting sufficient time, counsel for appellant failed to appear and address the arguments, heard the arguments of the respondent and proceeded to pass the judgment and dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraphs 13 to 15 as under: “13. The accused claims that despite of repayment of entire loan the PW1 by misusing his blank signed cheques obtained as security has filed the false complaint. The reply notice issued by the accused on behalf of the accused has been marked as Ex.D1. The bank statement pertaining to the accused stands in the name of Athithi Residency has been marked as Ex.D.2. The accused has produced the certified copies of various complaint in respect of section 138 of NI Act filed by the complainant through PW1 which are marked as Ex.D.3 to D.5. Ex.D.7 is the statement of account pertaining to PW1. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 14. In the instant case the accused has admitted that Ex.P.2 and P3 cheques belongs to him and it contains his signature and the accused has not denied the signatures in Ex.P.6 & 7 on demand promissory note and receipts. Ex.P.13 & 14 shows that total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was credited to the account of accused by the complainant through cheque. According to complainant subsequent to the loan the accused made part payment of Rs.50,000/- and towards the balance amount issued Ex.P.2 & P3 cheques for total amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. 15. PW1 during cross examination denied the entire payment of cheque amount by the accused. During cross examination dated 22.9.2015 PW1 stated that various payments dated 27.8.2012, 18.10.2012, 22.12.2012 and 2.1.2013 entered in the Ex.D.2 are not pertaining to case on hand. In order to show that there was other loan transaction between the accused and the complainant, PW1 has produced Ex.P.16 on demand promissory note and receipt dated 24.2.2012. Even though the PW1 stated that entries made in Ex.D.2 regarding the payments made by the accused does not pertaining to the loan in question, the trial court erroneously held that out of the cheque amount Rs.3,20,000/- was paid by the accused to the complainant. In the case on hand it is admitted that the Ex.P.2 & 3 cheques belongs to accused and it contains his signatures. Moreover the accused has not disputed his signatures in Ex.P.6,7 & P16 DP notes. I have carefully examined all the documentary evidence - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 produced by the accused which does not establish either full or part payment of loan in question.” 13. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 14. Sri K. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that approach of the First Appellant Court in not upholding the fair opportunity to address the arguments on merits has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. He would further contend that in the reply notice marked at Ex.D.1, there is a specific contention in paragraph 3 that all the loan amount has been cleared by the accused. For ready reference paragraph 3 of the reply notice is culled out hereunder: “My client is shocked and surprised that your client have filled up the cheques and presented the cheques to the bank to make illegal gains and there being no legal debt since all the transaction was completed to the full satisfaction of both the parties during March 2013 itself.” 16. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that the payments made by the accused is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 reflected in the statement of account of the accused as well as the complainant wherein cash payments are made in the name of Leelavathi which is reflected in the account of ICICI Bank of the complainant, which has not been taken note of by both the Courts while appreciating the plea of discharge of the entire loan amount, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 17. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, accused having borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as is contented in the complainant by executing two on demand promissory notes is established by the complainant by placing original on demand promissory notes and the cheques which were given towards the repayment of the loan amount. 19. Complainant has given deduction to Rs.50,000/- and proceeded to file the case only in respect of Rs.9,50,000/- which is the cheque amount mentioned in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 cheques. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 20. The loan amount was paid as per the on-demand promissory note through cheque by the complainant to the accused which is found from the material on record in the statement of accounts. 21. The plea of discharge pleaded by the accused has been taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate as referred to supra in detail. 22. Though the cheque amounts to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/-, the learned Trial Magistrate imposed the fine of Rs.5,80,000/- after giving necessary deduction as per the statement of account filed by the complainant as well as the accused. 23. It is at this juncture, the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner needs to be appreciated that entire loan amount on behalf of the revision petitioner is cleared. In that regard, learned judge in the First Appellate Court though there was no argument put forth on behalf of the appellant as counsel for appellant remained absent, took into consideration the appeal grounds as well as the material on record re-appreciated the material evidence and has held that the payments that is sought to be relied upon by the accused is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 earlier to the loan transaction as admittedly, accused and complainant had several transactions in between them in paragraph 15 of the Judgment of the First Appellate Court referred to supra. 24. Therefore, the learned judge in the First Appellate Court, concurred with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate while upholding the order of conviction and payment of the fine amount. 25. This Court in the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner again perused the statement of account filed by the complainant and the statement of account filed by the accused, which are marked at Ex.P17 and Ex.D2. 26. Ex.P17 is the statement of account maintained by the complainant in her bank namely, ICICI Bank, whereas Ex.D2 is the statement of account of the accused maintained in Karnataka Bank Limited. 27. Learned Trial Magistrate and learned judge in the First Appellate Court did appreciate the entries found in both the statements of account and has recorded a categorical finding while imposing fine of Rs.5,80,000/- by the Trial Magistrate after giving deduction to the payments that are - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 made by the accused in respect of the claim in Ex.P2 and Ex.P.3 to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/-. 28. If at all, the contention of the accused is to be accepted that there is a misappropriation of the cheques that has been issued there was no necessity for the complainant to give deduction to Rs.50,000/- and present the cheques for Rs.9,50,000/-. 29. In fact in the complaint itself, complainant has specifically stated that two cheques marked at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 were issued in a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively. Therefore, the theory of misuse of the cheques marked at Ex.P2 and Ex.P.3 cannot be countenanced. 30. Further, if the theory of the accused is to be accepted that there was misuse of cheques marked at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 there should have been a positive action on the part of the accused against the complainant for the alleged misuse at least after he has been served and engaged the services of an advocate before the Trial Magistrate. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 31. No such positive action has been taken by the accused even after coming to know that there was misuse of the cheques by the complainant. 32. These aspects of the matter when viewed cumulatively, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of conviction and the sentence imposed by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference except ordering sum of Rs.10,000/- as the fine amount towards the defraying expense of the State, as lis is privy to the parties. 33. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.5,80,000/- imposed by Trial Magistrate in C.C.No.5534/2015, confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1466/2016 is - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13829 CRL.RP No. 225 of 2018 modified by directing the accused to pay sum of Rs.5,70,000/-. (iii) The entire sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the Complainant. (iv) Imposition of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. (v) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. (vi) Balance amount is ordered to be paid on or before 31.03.2026, failing which, the accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (vii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60