- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1665 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.4/7, EAST STREET, A.T. HALLI, 5TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MADEVA N., S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.25/2, A.T. HALLI, CIRCULAR STREET, BHEEMANNA GARDEN, SHANTHINAGAR, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S.GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL IN CRL.A.NO.107/2023 DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LV ADDITIONAL CITY Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56) AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 05.01.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XX ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.2357/2021 AND TO REVERSE THE FINDINGS AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED 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 Court heard the matter in part in the previous occasion and at the request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the matter was adjourned and today heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the conviction order passed in C.C.No.2357/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directing the revision petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.11,10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the order of the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused being known to the complainant from many years and both are residing in the same locality, had approached the complainant to advance loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for the construction of his house with a promise to repay the same within 2 to 3 months. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused. Thereafter, since the accused did not repay the hand loan, a complaint was lodged with Ashok Nagar police. In the said police station, the accused appeared and admitted to pay the hand loan of the complainant within four months and has given his statement before the said police. After expiry of four months, when the complainant requested to pay the hand loan amount, the accused started giving reasons of COVID-19 and thereby the accused has taken back old cheques and issued a cheque dated 01.09.2020 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. On presenting the said cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, notice was issued to the accused by RPAD calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. But the RPAD cover was returned with postal shara as “insufficient address”. In - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 fact, the accused has intentionally evaded the service of legal notice. When he did not comply with the demand, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. The accused in order to substantiate his case, cross-examined P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 4 for having filed the case against Smt. Bharati in C.C.No.2356/2021, but not entered into the witness box. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the material available on record is sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was a transaction between the complainant and the accused. When the defence was taken that there was no proper service of notice, the Trial Court in paragraph No.12 taken note of the address mentioned in the notice is correct and also discussed the provisions of Sections 138(a), 138(b) as well as 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court also taken note of that as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, notice has been issued to the correct and proper address of the accused and it is held to be deemed service. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 4. The other defence of the accused before the Trial Court is that there was no any transaction between the complainant and the accused. But in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he made the suggestion that when the complaint was given to the police, he was summoned to the police station and thereafter, the cheque was given in favour of the complainant, but defence was taken that the cheque was taken forcibly and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on the record, except suggestion made to P.W.1 in the cross- examination and he did not choose to enter into the witness box to rebut the evidence of the complainant. The same is also taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 and convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. The First Appellate Court re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly with regard to the service of notice also discussed in detail. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the cheque was admitted and not disputed the signature and also taken note of that there was no any rebuttable evidence and nothing is placed on record before the Court that there was a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 preponderance of probabilities in favour of the accused and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial court. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that there was no proper service of notice on the accused and the postal shara was returned with an endorsement “insufficient address”. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/S. AJEET SEEDS LTD. v. K. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH reported in AIR 2014 SC 3057 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.14, wherein a discussion was made that Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further even in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement ‘refused’ or ‘not available in the house’ or ‘house locked’ or ‘shop closed’ or ‘address not in station’, due service has to be presumed. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that when the complainant was unable to prove the factum that he was having money and advanced the same to the accused, the question of presumption does not arise. The learned counsel would submit that the complainant first has to prove his case and then presumption arises and the reasoning given by the Trial Court is that the standard of proof of his defense shall be to the extent of preponderance of probabilities and it cannot be accepted. The learned counsel would contend that there is no proof with regard to the payment of amount and hence, the question of presumption does not arise. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that the accused did not dispute the address and even in the revision petition also, mentioned the same address, except mentioning “5th Cross, Lakshmi Road”. The summons issued against the accused was served, but he did not appear. When NBW was issued in respect of the very - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 same address, he was secured before the Court and he did not dispute the same before the Trial Court. Even in the cross- examination of P.W.1, not disputed the address mentioned in the notice as well as in the complaint. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court taking note of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, rightly comes to the conclusion that it should be presumed that notice was served in respect of the correct address. The learned counsel would contend that when the complaint was given before the police, the accused came and admitted his liability and issued the cheque. Though it is contended that it was forcibly taken, the same was not proved and even did not give any complaint either against the complainant or against the police officials, who have taken the cheque forcibly. Except using the word “forcibly” in the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing is substantiated. Hence, it does not require any interference. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also taking note of the material available on record, the notice was issued to the address of the accused, wherein categorically mentioned the house No.4/7, East Street, A.T.Halli, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 Shanthinagar, Bangalore. No doubt, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that ‘cross’ and ‘road’ is missing in the address. But house number, street, A.T.Halli, Shanthinagar, Bangalore, is not disputed by the accused. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 also not disputed the house number and street and only additional address of the road name as well as cross is not mentioned. When he did not dispute the address mentioned in the notice, particularly mentioning the house number as well as the street, the Trial Court taken note of the said fact into consideration and also invoked General Clauses Act. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. (supra), in paragraph No.14 categorically held that, Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. 9. But in the case on hand, though disputed the very service of notice, unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected. In the case on hand, nothing is disputed with regard to the address is concerned. Even not stated anything about he is residing elsewhere and not in the address mentioned in the legal notice and even not led any rebuttal evidence to that effect. When such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and hence, the first limb of argument with regard to no service of notice, cannot be accepted. 10. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the petitioner is working in the Government department and he was not having the money to pay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. But the fact is that the complainant has not stated in the complaint that immediately after advancing the amount, the accused gave the cheque. He - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 categorically deposed that both are residing at the distance of 100 feet and both of them are having acquaintance with each other and when he did not repay the amount, he had given the complaint to Ashok Nagar police and police have secured him to the police station and the same is not disputed that the complainant has given the complaint against him and he was secured to the police station and he gave the cheque. He admits the issuance of cheque, but his only contention is that the cheque was taken forcibly. But the cheque was taken forcibly, was not proved by eliciting any answers from the mouth of P.W.1 and he did not enter into the witness box to substantiate the same by leading any defence evidence and hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has not made out any preponderance of probabilities to accept the defence. Once the cheque was admitted and signature is not disputed, presumption lies in favour of the complainant. If any material is placed before the Court and if it is rebutted under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the same is a rebuttable presumption and in the case on hand, when there is no such rebuttal evidence before the Court, once again shifting the burden on the complainant does not arise. When - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 such being the material available on record, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that amount was not given. 11. The other defence was taken by the accused that he had introduced one Shankar to the complainant and without his knowledge, Shankar had taken an amount of Rs.50,000/- as loan from the complainant and when Shankar did not repay the amount, the accused was taken to the police station and obtained the cheque forcibly. To substantiate the said contention also, the accused did not examine Shankar before the Trial Court that the complainant had advanced the amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Shankar and when he did not repay the amount, the accused was forced to the police station and obtained the cheque. If that was the case, the accused would have examined Shankar that he availed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and even to substantiate the said defence also, not led any evidence before the Court. It is the specific admission on the part of the complainant that he also filed a case against one Bharathi and also the documents of Exs.D.1 to 4 are in respect of filing of the case against Bharathi and except that, nothing is placed on record to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33684 CRL.RP No. 1665 of 2023 substantiate the defence of the petitioner. When such being the case, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused and this Court can exercise the revisional powers only if the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and if ignored the material available on record leading to miscarriage of justice and the said circumstances is not found in the case on hand. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the criminal revision petition. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20