- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32882 CRL.RP No. 357 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.357 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DAYANANDA POOJARI, S/O LATE RAJU POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O MELINA KURUVALLI, KURUVALLI POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHARAVATHI PATTINA SAHAKARASANGHA NIYAMITHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.L.D. BANK BUILDING, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTIRCT-577201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHWATH C.M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.RP BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.17/2023 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32882 CRL.RP No. 357 of 2024 OF THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR THE OFFNECE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT DATED 27.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT THIRTHAHALLI IN C.C.NO.22/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused is the member of the complainant society. The accused approached the complainant bank and borrowed loan to the tune of Rs.11,45,000/- on 18.04.2015 for the purpose of business by executing necessary loan documents and agreeing to repay the said amount within 31.03.2016 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also furnished one surety by name his wife Smt. Ishwaray. After borrowing the said loan amount, the accused failed to make repayment of the said loan amount inspite of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32882 CRL.RP No. 357 of 2024 complainant’s repeated demands and request. The accused visited the complainant’s society and on verifying the statement of accounts and admitting the balance to be paid, the accused issued the subject matter of the Cheque dated 11.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.18,26,465/- in favour of the complainant society. When the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, legal notice was issued on 06.11.2017 through RPAD to the last known address of the accused. The said legal notice was duly served to the accused on 09.11.2017. Inspite of it, he did not comply with the demand notice and hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty. Hence, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 23. The P.W.1 was cross-examined, but the accused not led any defence evidence except confronting the documents of Exs.D.1 to 9. 3. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, particularly in paragraph Nos.18 to 20, discussed with regard to the case of the complainant and also the documents which have been produced and comes to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32882 CRL.RP No. 357 of 2024 conclusion that Ex.D.3 receipts which have been produced are in respect of the earlier loans. The Trial Court also took note of issuance of legal notices to the accused in 2017, 2018 and 2020 and when the notices were served, no reply was given. His only contention was that he has not availed the loan from the complainant. But what made him to give cheque is not substantiated by placing any documents on record and the same is taken note of in paragraph Nos.18 and 19. In paragraph No.20, the other defence which was taken is taken note of by the Trial Court that the promissory note Ex.P.10 is incomplete document and the Trial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of S.N. RAJESH v. S. ANANDA RAO reported in 2021 (2) KCCR 141, wherein it is held that Sections 4 and 138 – dishonour of Cheque – Proceedings for complainant producing promissory note as a collateral document to prove existence of debt and issuance of cheque. Accused contending that since attestor of promissory note was not examined, document cannot be relied upon to prove his guilt. Promissory note need not be attested – Plea not sustainable. Having taken note of the other defence also, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32882 CRL.RP No. 357 of 2024 Trial Court met with the defence, which was taken and convicted and sentenced the accused. 4. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.17/2023. The Appellate Court having re- assessed the evidence available on record, particularly the cross-examination made in respect of P.W.1 was discussed in paragraph Nos.20 and 21. In paragraph No.22, discussed regarding accused has seriously disputed the alleged borrowing by raising several contentions to the effect that the said cheque through which the complainant society is alleged to have disbursed the loan amount was an open cheque and there was a possibility of anybody presenting the said cheque by impersonating the accused and that the accused has not at all received the said amount and the same is also met by the Appellate Court. In paragraph No.24, discussed with regard to issuance of notices in 2018, 2019 and 2020 calling upon the accused to pay the entire balance amount and even inspite of notices are issued, not responded and even for the legal notice issued before initiating the proceedings also, not given any reply and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32882 CRL.RP No. 357 of 2024 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that the amount was paid by way of open cheque and the same can be utilized by any of the persons. The learned counsel would also contend that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the defence, which was taken during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1. The learned counsel would submit that with regard to misusing of the cheque also suggestions were made and it is a clear case of misusing of the cheque. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the Courts met the defence which was taken before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court with regard to non-payment of loan amount. The learned counsel would submit that repeated requests were made to make the payment and ultimately the accused issued the subject matter of the cheque and the same was dishonored. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner not disputes the fact that he was having a transaction with the complainant society. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32882 CRL.RP No. 357 of 2024 The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court 9 receipts which have been marked as Ex.D.3 and the same are in respect of earlier transaction and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 and in paragraph No.20 taken note of with regard to the document Ex.P.10 is incomplete document and the same is considered by the Trial Court relying upon the judgment of this Court and the same is only a collateral document of promissory note. The issuance of cheque is not disputed, but only contend that the said cheque was misused and in order to prove the factum of misusing of cheque, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same and he did not enter into the witness box, except marking of documents Exs.D.1 to 9. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court taken note of the material available on record and comes to the conclusion that there is no any rebuttable evidence and though suggested that the cheques are misused, but in order to prove the factum that it was misused, nothing is placed on record. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32882 CRL.RP No. 357 of 2024 correctness and hence, the admission of this revision petition does not arise. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37