- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 592 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI AKRAMA KHAN S/O AMEER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 74,8TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABDUL SAB C B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SYED JAMALAUDDIN S/O SYED ZAHEERUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1267, 14TH CROSS, 29TH MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560076. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R LOKESH ,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 13.01.2026 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-62), BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 NO. 2244/2018, AND TO SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENT THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C NO. 17564/2016 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondent. 2. This matter is listed for admission. 3. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 4. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the trial Court are that the complainant and accused are family friends and well acquainted to each other. The accused approached the complainant during first week of July, 2015 and borrowed hand loan of Rs.3,40,000/- for his daughter’s marriage. The accused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 assured to repay the said amount within three months. But the said amount has not been repaid by the accused and instead, he issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/- respectively in favour of the complainant. On instruction, the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment and the same is returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Though accused was informed about dishonour of cheque, he did not respond. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 18.12.2015 and the same was served on 19.12.2015, inspite of it, the accused did not repay the said amount. Hence, the complaint is filed against the accused and the cognizance was taken and did not plead guilty and claims trial. 5. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined as P.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. Thereafter, the accused was subjected to recording of Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the accused was denied the averments made in the complaint and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.D1 to D4. Having considered the material on record, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.’ Act for short). The said order was challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.2244/2018 and the appellate Court reassessed the evidence available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court in the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would mainly contend on the ground that with regard to non-compliance with Section 138(b) of N.I.Act which requires the payee to give a written notice to the drawer of Cheque within 30 days of dishonour. The complainant sent the notice to 5/1, 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru. But he admits that he resides in house No.74, a 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura for the last 35 years. Further, it is contended that during the course of cross- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 examination, it is stated that the respondent was a family friend and well acquainted with the revision petitioner. If the respondent truly shared such a close relationship, it is inconceivable that he would be unaware of the actual place of revision petitioner’s residence at No.74, 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura. Further, it contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court erred in considering the fact in respect of service of notice to the accused wherein the appellate Court compared the signatures in the notice as well as in the sale deed. He also contended that the complainant has failed to establish his financial capacity in lending the amount to accused. 7. Having considered the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also grounds urged in the revision petition with regard to service of notice is concerned that, the accused resides in house No.74, 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura, Bangalore, but the said notice was sent to the address where he resides i.e.,No.5/1, 8th Main Road, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru. However, he has to adduce - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 that he resides in only one address. During the course of cross-examination, accused denies that House No.5/1 is not his house but he admits that the house No.74 and i.e., 8th Main Road and the trial Court taken note of the said aspect in paragraph No.16 of the judgment. All these documents are only in respect of disputing the address of the accused. However, after taking into account of the service of notice against the father, comes to the conclusion that the address is mainly mentioned in different addresses but admits both the addresses that is discussed in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 of the judgment of the trial Court regarding service of notice, the petitioner also not disclosed that it was served on his father and hence the first contention that no service of notice can be accepted. Apart from that, when the cheques are marked but denies the signature and not signed the document at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and also denied that those signatures are not belongs to him, but also admits that the cheques belongs - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 to him and also the petitioner is having the account in the said bank. 8. Learned counsel would submit that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not considered the legal aspect of the case. Further, the trial Court in detail in paragraph Nos.16 to 18 of its judgment taken note of the fact that the accused has taken false defence before the trial Court that signature on the Cheque does not belongs to him and in paragraph No.20, the trial Court has taken note of the same. The accused has not denied his signature at Ex.P2. But principles of legal maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus”, i.e., if there is an incorrect statement in the evidence, then the entire evidence becomes false cannot be applied in Indian Courts. Further, the trial Court has also taken note of defence which was taken by the accused and the same has been falsified regarding service of notice as well as the cheques are concerned and comes to the conclusion that there is no such document produced before the Court and convicted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 the accused. The appellate Court also re-appreciated the material available on record and also taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 wherein it has reiterated and summarized the principles relating to the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. Further, with regard to service of notice is concerned, even though notice was served and no reply was given. But after that, false witnesses’ evidence are taken and accused is trying to rebut the presumption lying in favour of the complainant and the same was taken note of in paragraph Nos.28 and 29 of the judgment of the Apex Court. 9. Having considered the reasoning given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and also the defence which was taken that is not falsified with regard to the service of notice as well as issuance of the Cheque and the same was not sent to the handwriting expert and another contention that the cheques were stolen. But to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33206 CRL.RP No. 592 of 2026 that effect, no complaint was given and no evidence before the Court that cheque was also stolen. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition as there is no error on the part of the trial court as well as the appellate Court. This Court can only exercise the powers under the revision if the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and the same is not warranted in the case on hand. Hence, no ground is made out to exercise the revision jurisdiction in the present case. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39