- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21886 CRL.RP No. 1250 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. 1250 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJESH HEGDE S/O LATE SHANKAR HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 632, GROUND FLOOR, ITI LAYOUT, MADIWALA POST, BENGALURU 560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M S NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SANDEEP SHETTY S/O KORAGAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 1-282, KOPPARIGE MANE, HOSADU KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 247. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.854/2022 DATED 16.06.2025 BY THE LEARNED LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-67) AND IN C.C.NO.26940/2017 DATED 14.06.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XV ADDL CMM BENGALURU AND B. CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF NI ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21886 CRL.RP No. 1250 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.M.S.Nagaraja and Sri.Raghavendra.S learned counsel for the parties. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No. 26940/2017 confirmed in Crl.A.No.854/2022 is the Revision petitioner. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A private complaint came to be lodged with the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.PC alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused is one of the partners of registered partnership firm by name M/s Suraksha Controls. There were four partners in the partnership firm. The said partnership firm was dissolved and a settlement deed signed by all the partners was executed on 02.05.2017. Accused also executed indemnity bond in favour of the complainant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21886 CRL.RP No. 1250 of 2025 3.2 As per the terms of settlement, accused undertook to pay a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant. As such, the accused paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of a cheque and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid in cash to the complainant. 3.3 Accused undertook to pay the remaining balance of Rs.2,00,000/-. But failed to do so and in that regard, he issued a cheque bearing No.189658 dated 15.06.2017 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Residency Road Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. A legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to pay the balance amount. However, the same was not served on the accused as it was returned with an endorsement 'addressee left'. 3.4 Therefore, the complainant sought action against the accused. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21886 CRL.RP No. 1250 of 2025 accused and recorded the plea. As the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held. 3.5 In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record 21 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 comprising of indemnity bond, pay-in-slip, cheque, signature of the accused therein, bank endorsement, letter written by the accused, copy of the legal notice, postal receipts and postal envelopes, certified copy of the registration certificate of Suraksha Control Pharma, copy of the sale deed, partnership deed, reconstitution of the partnership deed, bank statement, letter written by the accused, Master Data Form, Account Opening Form, Partnership Letters and Lease Agreement. As against the material evidence placed on record by the accused, there is no defence evidence. 3.6 The suggestions made to PW1 that the accused is not liable to pay the amount covered under the cheque is denied by the complainant. As such, there were no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21886 CRL.RP No. 1250 of 2025 positive materials elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 which would rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.7 As such, learned Trial Magistrate taking note of the same, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.8 The order of conviction and sentence was subject matter of challenge before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.854/2017. 3.9 Learned judge of the First Appellate Court, after securing the records and hearing the arguments of the parties in detail, re-appreciated the material on record and dismissed the appeal by a considered judgment dated 16.06.2025. 3.10 Thereafter, accused is before this court in this revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21886 CRL.RP No. 1250 of 2025 4. Sri.M.S.Nagaraja learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that even in the absence of any defence evidence, accused can demonstrate before the Court that the presumption available to the complainant has been rebutted by following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL V/S STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER reported in (2019) 18 SCC 106. 5. He would further contend that there was an arbitration clause in Ex.P13 and therefore, the question of proceeding with the criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not have been maintained and therefore, sought for allowing the revision. 6. Per contra, Sri.S.Raghavendra learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21886 CRL.RP No. 1250 of 2025 such perusal of the material on record, in the absence of any application under Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, PW1 could not have been cross- examined by the accused. Nevertheless, in the cross- examination suggestions made to PW1 that he is not liable to pay the cheque amount is denied by PW1. 8. Following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION & ORS V/S UNION OF INDIA & ANR reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, the case should have commenced with defence evidence. In the case on hand there is no defence evidence at all. 9. Admittedly, cheque belongs to the accused and there is no dispute with regard to the signature found therein. Cheque is dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also taking note of the fact that accused has left the address and in the alternate address he was absent at the time of delivering the registered article, following the provisions of law under the General Clauses - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21886 CRL.RP No. 1250 of 2025 Act, 1897, the registered article deemed to have been served on the accused and there is no reply to the legal notice. 10. Given these aspects of the matter, the conviction of the accused by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court warrants no interference that too when the liability is admitted under the deed of dissolution by the accused and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid by the accused, which has been given due deduction by the complainant in the complaint itself. 11. Accordingly the following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DS/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29