- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32884 CRL.RP No. 492 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.492 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G. SOMASHEKAR PRASAD, S/O GOPALARAMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS FDA IN SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ALSO AT: RESIDING AT NO.44/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VITTAL NAGARA, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAYEEM PASHA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAVI K., S/O G. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13/4, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, VALMIKI NAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560026. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJA PATEL G.K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32884 CRL.RP No. 492 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.216/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 28.12.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.5687/2019 BY THE HONBLE VI ADDL. JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM AT BENGALURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. 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. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused is known to the complainant since three years and both are friends. The accused is serving as a F.D.A. in Commissioner's Office, Social Welfare Department, M.S.Building, Bengaluru. It is contended that the accused approached the complainant during the month of March 2019 and requested for financial help. Initially, the complainant refused to give any financial help due to his own financial difficulties. Finally, he agreed to help the accused. In the month of May 2019, the complainant paid a sum of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32884 CRL.RP No. 492 of 2024 Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash and the accused has agreed to repay the loan within a period of two months. After the expiry of two months, when the complainant demanded the money, the accused issued the subject matter of the cheque. When the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Immediately, legal notice was issued and the same was duly served and the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6, including the statement of account of the complainant and subject matter of the cheque Ex.P.1. The accused not led any defence evidence. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, the accused seriously denied the very transaction and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.22. However, the accused admitted that the cheque belongs to him and also admitted the signature Ex.P.1(a). The contention was taken that he has repaid the loan amount with interest, but to substantiate the said contention, the accused neither produced - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32884 CRL.RP No. 492 of 2024 any document nor adduced any oral evidence before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that when the contention was taken that cheque was misused, no legal action has been taken against the complainant and when the notice was given to him, the accused did not give any reply. The accused also not disputed the address mentioned in the notice. Hence, the Trial Court convicted the accused. 3. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.216/2023. The First Appellate Court re- assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record and taken note of the defence in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 and in paragraph No.21 taken note that the accused was working as a F.D.A. in Social Welfare Department and he knows the consequences of issuing blank Cheque. When such defence was taken and admitted the signature and also the cheque, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused. Both the Courts brushed aside the facts admitted by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32884 CRL.RP No. 492 of 2024 the respondent in his cross-examination that the respondent has deposed that he obtained the personal loan from Citi Bank and Standard Chartered Bank to a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- for using the same for the treatment of his father in the month of May 2019. But the respondent himself admits that he has not used the said money for his father's treatment and further failed to furnish any medical record of his father's treatment to prove the reason for availing the personal loan. Moreover, the said amount was self-cashed by the respondent himself on 24.05.2019 and for having paid the amount, nothing is placed on record. 5. Having considered the grounds urged in the revision petition as well as the material available on record, the Trial Court taken note of that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was made that the accused has repaid the loan amount along with interest. When such cross-examination was made, denying of the very transaction and also the liability does not arise. With regard to the misusing of the cheque is concerned, no action was taken against the complainant. Apart from that, how the cheque went to the hands of the complainant is also not substantiated by the accused except - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32884 CRL.RP No. 492 of 2024 total denial. Once the cheque is issued, presumption comes in favour of the complainant and the same has to be rebutted and the accused did not enter into the witness box to substantiate his defence as well as to rebut the evidence of the complainant. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and the order of the Trial Court not suffers from its legality and correctness. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40