- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 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. 939 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SIDDABASAVAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.937, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD NAGASANDRA POST, HMT LAYOUT OPP BHOOMIKA FLOUR MILL BENGALURU - 560073 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.T. JAGANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHARADA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT SUSHEELAMMA W/O K B REVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS GANGAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560083 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY T.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2019 IN C.C.NO.27390/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XII TH ACMM COURT, AT BENGALURU AND ALSO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 12.05.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.1245/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-61) BANGALORE FOR HOLDING THAT IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC., THIS REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri M.T.Jaganmohan, learned counsel for Smt. Sharada, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Murthy T.R., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused in C.C.No.27390/2015 had suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') and ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 of which, sum of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.3,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 1245/2019 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 In respect of a dishonoured cheque issued by the accused, allegedly, towards the repayment of the hand loan amount, a prosecution was launched by filing a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., by the complainant. 3.2 Learned trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities secured the appearance of the accused, recorded plea and thereafter, recorded the evidence of the complainant and accused, convicted the accused, disbelieving the defence set up by the accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 that the cheque marked at Ex.P1 was stolen by the complainant. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused approached the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1245/2019. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by impugned judgment dated 12.05.2021 dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 5. Sri M.T.Jaganmohan learned counsel representing Smt Sharada, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that the cheque in question which is marked as Ex.P.1 was stolen by the complainant taking advantage that the complainant being the relative of the accused and in that regard, no proper investigation has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 been done and learned trial Judge has also not taken necessary probative value in respect of the oral testimony of the accused and mechanically convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supports the impugned judgment. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to the accused and signature found is that of the accused. 9. According to the complainant, towards the repayment of hand loan cheque Ex.P1 in question came to be issued, which on presentation admittedly got dishonoured. Therefore, initial burden has been discharged by the complainant to raise the presumption - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 available to the complainant as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 and Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148. 10. No doubt, such a presumption is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act, accused got examined himself as DW.1. Except oral testimony, there is no material on record though accused has stated that there is a complaint with the police in respect of stealing away of the cheque by the complainant. Such a Complaint itself is not placed on record nor any effort has been made by the accused to take positive action against the complainant for the alleged misappropriation of the cheque. 11. No prudent person would keep quiet if after coming to know that the complainant has misused the cheque which contains the valuable security, even after - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 engaging the services of an advocate. The silence of the accused in this regard is sought to be explained by the counsel for the petitioner stating that complainant is a relative and therefore, no criminal action has been initiated against her, cannot be countenanced in law in is as much as accused himself is placing criminal prosecution from the complainant. 12. Therefore, in the absence of any plausible explanation as to the dishonour of the cheque and theory of misuse of the cheque having been not proved by placing necessary material evidence on record, conviction of the accused is just and proper, which requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction. 13. Having said so, imposition of Rs.3,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law, in as much as the lis is prevailed to the parties and no State missionary is involved. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 Accordingly, same needs to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal revision petition is allowed-in- part while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. (ii) The fine amount ordered by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- is reduced to a sum of Rs.3,47,000/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.3,47,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. (iv) Imposition of fine amount of Rs.3,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15345 CRL.RP No. 939 of 2021 (v) The amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification and balance sum to be paid on or before 31.03.2026, failing which. the accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (vi) 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 PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21