- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19958 CRL.RP No. 1172 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1172 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI D.H.SHIVAKUMAR S/O HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL OBALAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577542 R/AT DALAWAYI KATTE, HEGGERE POST, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577542. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI B.G.MALLIKARJUNA S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O HEGGERE VILLAGE, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577542. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK VAIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19958 CRL.RP No. 1172 of 2018 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.10.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CRL.A.NO.10/2018, AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HOSADURGA IN C.C.NO.515/2012, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Mohan J.R., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Abhishek Vaidya, appearing on behalf of Sri S.V. Prakash, counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.515/2012 and Crl.A.No.10/ 2018 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petitioner are as under. 3.1. A private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed by the respondent/complainant alleging the commission of the offence - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19958 CRL.RP No. 1172 of 2018 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that the accused is acquainted with the complainant and in first week of May 2012, he borrowed hand loan in a sum of Rs.3,50,000 for meeting his family necessity with a promise to repay the same within a short period of time of two months. 3.2. Despite repeated demands, the accused did not repay the amount and ultimately issued a Cheque bearing No.644286, dated 27.07.2012 in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’. 3.3. Thereafter complainant issued the legal notice and there is no compliance to the callings of the notice nor reply, resulting in complainant seeking action against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. On receipt of the complaint, learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities summoned the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19958 CRL.RP No. 1172 of 2018 accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record 22 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P22, comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, postal receipt and acknowledgment, certified copy of the order sheets in C.C.No.935/2013, C.C.No.243/2014, C.C.No.27/2015, C.C.No.28/2015 and certified copy of the order sheet in PCR No.69/2015. 6. As against the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW1 and his friend by name Chandarappa as DW2 to establish that there was no transaction at all between the complainant and accused and cheque in question was misused by the complainant. 7. Certified copy of the BPL card was marked as court document at Ex.C1. 8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties, noted that the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19958 CRL.RP No. 1172 of 2018 Instruments Act is not properly rebutted and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.10/2018. 10. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, accused is before this court. 11. Sri Mohan J.R., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that the transaction between the complainant and accused is only borrowing of Rs.50,000/- and at that juncture cheque in question came to be issued by the accused which has been misused by the complainant by filling up in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. 12. Therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt covered under Ex.P1 which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision of petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19958 CRL.RP No. 1172 of 2018 13. He would further contend that the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 is not properly appreciated by learned Trial Magistrate coupled with the document that has been placed on record. Therefore, sought for allowing the revision of petition. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, Ex.P1 is the cheque that is belonging to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused is established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record by the complainant. 17. However, a feeble attempt is made by the accused in denying the signature found at Ex.P1 in his cross- examination. 18. It is pertinent to note that the cheque is not dishonored with an endorsement that the signature of accused in Ex.P1 did not tally with specimen signature. 19. Further, even according to the accused, he has borrowed sum of Rs.50,000/- and the cheque in question came - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19958 CRL.RP No. 1172 of 2018 to be issued at that juncture which has been misused by the complainant. 20. Further, if there is any misuse of the cheque as is contented by the accused, there should have been a positive action against the complainant by approaching the police or lodging a private complainant against the accused as accused is a seasoned litigant inasmuch as he was facing six cheque bounce cases. 21. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that the cheque in question came to be misused by the complainant cannot be countenanced in law. 22. When such defence of the accused fails, automatically the presumption available to the complainant is to be resorted to which has been done by the learned Trial Magistrate and the same is rightly upheld by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court. 23. The defence evidence in the form of oral testimony of DW1 and DW2 coupled with the documentary evidence placed on record was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19958 CRL.RP No. 1172 of 2018 24. Thus, this Court, in the revisional jurisdiction did not find any patent factual error or error of jurisdiction for setting aside the order of Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 25. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 68