- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 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.757 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. D. SATISH KUMAR, M/S. SRI. SAI ASSOCIATES, PROPRIETOR, S/O. DASARATHA, C/O. SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NEAR FORCE CITY TAXI, NEAR MUNIVENKATAPPA BUILDING, KASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KAIKONDANAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, BENGALURU-560 035. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. S. VIJAY ANAND, S/O. LATE. SHIVABALAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, SADASHIVA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, R.S. PALYA, M.S. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 (BY SRI. D. BHUVANESHWARI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2016 PASSED BY THE V A.S.C.J. AND XXIV ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.97892/2009 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2017 PASSED BY TEH XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU (CCH-29) IN CRL.A.NO.25021/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND RESTORE THE ABOVE SAID CRL.A. 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 Sri.G.K.Shiva Prakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Accused has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.97892/2009 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.25021/2016, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 3.1 A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). 3.2 As per the complaint averments, accused was the agent of Sriram Transport Finance Company and he used to hypothecate the vehicles from the third parties for obtaining vehicle loans. 3.3 There was an agreement that in case, third parties failed to repay the loan amount, he can seize the vehicle of the third parties. Accused and complainant have agreed and given two lorries of Ashok Leyland model 2025-26 to the complainant. Those lorries carried the registration No.KA-22-A- 3964 and KA-22-A-3965 with 10 wheels without tyres and complainant purchased the same from the accused. The lorries were not in running condition and there were no tyres except the scrap body etc. Accused said to have sold the lorries in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- each totaling to sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and received the amount - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 from the complainant, in turn issued two receipts acknowledged by signing the same on 16.06.2008. 3.4 After the period of six months and assuring that he will bear the charges for tax, insurance etc., including the repairs of both the lorries. It is further case of the complainant that accused has executed a sale letter on 19.08.2008 in his letter head stating that the complainant can repair the lorries and repair charges will be borne by the accused. 3.5 Believing the words of the accused, complainant carried out the repairs of both the lorries which expenses came upto Rs.11,00,000/-. 3.6 Complainant purchased the lorries from the accused on 19.08.2008 for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and in view of the letter, the complainant demanded the payment of Rs.11,00,000/-, which was incurred towards the repair of the lorries. Towards the repayment, cheque in question came to be issued. 3.7 The said cheques on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement "account closed". Callings of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 the statutory notice remained uncomplied. Therefore, action was sought. 3.8 Before the trial Court, the learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held. 3.9 In order to prove the complaint averments, complainant got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record 16 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16, comprising of bank endorsements, original cheques, letter dated 19.08.2008, cash vouchers, endorsement given by the Banaswadi Police Station, office copy of the legal notice, returned R.P.A.D covers, cash bills and invoices. 3.10 As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, in order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Act, accused got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record a document, which is copy of the 'B' register extract of the lorry bearing No.KA22-A-3965 as Ex.D1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 3.11 Thereafter, Learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties, noted the answers elicited in the cross-examination of the accused with regard to the sale receipt is only in the respect of one lorry though two lorries were sold and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the fine to the State for defraying expenses. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No. 25021 of 2016. However, the said appeal was not properly prosecuted and it came to be dismissed for default. 5. Subsequent thereto, the present revision petition is filed by the accused. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri.G.K.Shiva Prakash, learned counsel would contend that Trial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and lorries were sold in as is where is condition and there was no contract to pay the repair charges - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/- and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. He would further contend that the cheques in question were issued towards some other transaction and the same have been misused by the complainant and does sought for allowing the revision petition. None appears for the respondent. 7. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, cheques marked at Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 are belonging to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. Admittedly, the cheques were dishonored with an endorsement "account closed". Accused failed to receive the legal notice and there was no compliance to the legal callings of the notice. 8. There is no dispute that Ex.P8 is the letter written by the accused to the complainant and accused has admitted his signature in Ex.P8. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 9. Ex.P8 is the letter wherein the accused has undertaken to pay the repair charges to the lorries, which are sold by him to the complainant. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption to the complainant under Section 139 of the Act. 10. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, accused got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record a document, which is the 'B' register extract in respect of one lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-A- 3965. 11. If the accused has sold two lorries, where are the documents with regard to the another lorry wherein the sale has taken place is a question that remains unanswered. Further, accused has categorically admitted in his cross- examination, which is extracted by the learned Trial Magistrate in para 18, which is in vernacular wherein accused has admitted that the sale letter pertains to only one lorry and in respect of another lorry there is no sale letter. 12. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the false defence taken by the accused was not sufficient enough to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 rebut the presumption available to the complainant. Further, when the accused has admitted Ex.P8, he cannot turn around and say that he did not agree to pay the repair charges. 13. A sum of Rs.11,00,000/- is spent towards the repair charges and these aspects of the matter has been taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate while convicting the accused. Further, if it is the case of the accused that the cheques are misused, there should have been a criminal complaint against the complainant for having misused the cheque. No such attempt is made by the accused till now. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the conviction and the sentence. 14. However, Since lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, imposing fine of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State, needs interference in this revision. Accordingly, the following: O R D E R (i) Revision petition allowed in part. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13587 CRL.RP No. 757 of 2019 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed towards the defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. (iii) Amount of compensation awarded to the complainant is kept intact. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of Rs.10,00,000/- is already paid towards the compensation amount. Time is granted till 31.03.2026 to pay the balance fine amount, failing which, he shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Magistrate. Let the copy of this order be sent to the trial Magistrate for issue of modified conviction warrant forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19