- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1613 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. GAURAV, S/O RANJAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, UNIVERSAL COMPUTERS/GIZMO, GROUND FLOOR, RAJ TOWERS, OPP. RADHA MEDICALS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYANTHA POOJARY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SURESH PUROHITH, S/O HARICHANDRIJI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, C/O NUTECH LAPTOP WORLD, GROUND FLOOR, JEEVAN COMPLEX, NEAR PETROL PUMP, BEJAI KAPIKAD, MANGALURU-576004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.04.2024 MADE IN C.C.NO.241/2023 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C (VIII) AT MANGALURU D.K AND THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2024 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.115/2024 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K MANGALURU IN WHICH CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION MADE IN ABOVE C.C.NO.241/2023 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I 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 and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that, the complainant is a dealer of computers, laptops and computer accessories. The accused had transactions with the complainant by holding running account. The accused had purchased computer and computer peripherals from the complainant by making payment in part or - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 by installments. On 11.02.2017, the accused was due of Rs.12,45,820/- towards the purchase made by him. The complainant requested the accused to make the payments and the accused issued the cheque dated 15.07.2019 for an amount of Rs.12,45,820/-. The accused informed the complainant that the cheque could be presented for encashment and will be honoured. But thereafter, the accused requested the complainant to wait for two weeks. The accused has requested for further delivery of stocks from the complainant, but the complainant refused to deliver further stocks to the accused. The accused issued notice to the complainant asking for returning the cheque creating a false story and the complainant had replied to the said notice. Thereafter, the accused approached the complainant and after mutual discussions, the accused informed the complainant to present the cheque and the complainant presented the cheque for encashment and the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, the complainant issued notice to the accused and the same was served, but no reply was given. Thereafter, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 was secured and he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 24. The accused is not examined, but produced the document of Ex.D.1 legal notice issued to the complainant. 4. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly the Cheque, the signature and issuance of notice and no reply and Exs.P.7 to 22 tax invoices and the accused also not disputed Exs.P.7 to 22 when the notice was issued demanding him to comply with the demand, accepted the case of the complainant. The Trial Court also taken note of that the accused did not choose to enter into the witness box. In paragraph No.20, the Trial Court taken note of the defence which was taken by the accused that the cheque was issued as a security and the accused is the proprietor of Universal Computers and also taken note of that the accused has admitted that he is the proprietor and there is no any dealing of business. But he contended that the cheque was given as a security and the complainant has relied upon the document with regard to the transaction between the complainant and the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 accused. The Trial Court having taken note of the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that in order to substantiate the contention that the cheque was given towards the security, nothing is placed on record and also not rebutted the evidence of the complainant and hence, convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence, particularly in paragraph No.13 taken note of that the burden is on the complainant to prove the fact that he is the holder of the cheque. The Appellate Court also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RANGAPPA v. MOHAN reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 and the contention of the revision petitioner was also discussed in paragraph No.16 in respect of Ex.D.1 and comes to the conclusion that Ex.D.1 was issued in the month of September, but cheque was given in the month of July i.e., on 15.07.2019 admitting the liability and the very defence that the cheque was given for security is not substantiated by leading any defence - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 evidence and defence, which was taken remains as defence only and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in his arguments would vehemently contend that when the legal notice was issued, the amount due is mentioned as Rs.12,45,820/-, but cheque is issued for Rs.12,54,820/- and there is a discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the notice as well as in the cheque and the same was not taken note of by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The learned counsel in support of his argument relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAVERI PLASTICS v. MAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL passed in SPL (Crl.) Nos.11184- 11185/2024 dated 19.09.2025 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.7 of the said judgment and contend that when the notice is inadequate, the question of convicting the revision petitioner does not arise. The learned counsel contend that when the defence was taken that the cheque was issued for security and there was no any transaction and in the documents of Exs.P.7 to 22 invoices there are blank, the same was also not considered. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that while mentioning the amount, the numbers ‘5’ and ‘4’ are interchanged and cheque was issued on 15.07.2019 and on that day, the exact cheque amount was given and Ex.D.1 notice was issued subsequently that there was no transaction. But in the cross-examination of P.W.1, the issuance of cheque and signature on the cheque is not disputed. But only contention was taken that the cheque was given for security and the very defence of security was not substantiated by leading any cogent evidence and even not entered into the witness box to substantiate his contention that it was given for security. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, it is the specific case of the complainant that there was a transaction between the complainant and the accused and the accused used to purchase the computer accessories and was due for an amount of Rs.12,45,820/- on 11.02.2017. No doubt, in the complaint a mistake was crept in while mentioning the amount. Instead of Rs.12,54,820/-, it is mentioned as Rs.12,45,820/- - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 and it is only a typographical mistake. The other contention of the revision petitioner is that the cheque was given for security. If there was no any transaction between the complainant and the accused as contended by him, what was the need of giving the cheque for security has not been explained. The Court has to take note of the fact that the cheque was issued in the month of July, but notice as per Ex.D.1 was given in the month of September immediately after giving the cheque with regard to the liability of the accused and in an ingenious method, notice was given before presenting the cheque. The complainant specifically stated in the complaint that when there was a due amount, again the accused asked to supply the computer accessories., but he did not accept for his demand for supply as there was already a due. 9. It is the specific case of the complainant that when the cheque was given earlier, the accused requested not to present the same for sometime and the said situation was taken as an advantage and issued Ex.D.1 and the same is only an afterthought. If there was no any transaction, the accused would have entered the witness box and substantiated that the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 cheque was given for security, but he did not enter into the witness box. Two modes can be considered for rebutting the case of the complainant. One is effective cross-examination of P.W.1. But nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 with regard to the contention of the accused. The other mode of proving the case of the accused is by leading evidence and the same is also not done. There is no any rebuttal evidence on the part of the accused to substantiate his defence that the cheque was given for security. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not committed any error in considering the material on record, particularly the cheque and the actual amount was mentioned in the cheque. Hence, I do not find any force in the very contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court referred supra. In the said case, the amount was in crores. The cheque was issued for Rs.1 Crore, whereas in both the aforesaid notices sent to the accused, the drawer of the cheque upon bouncing of the cheque, the complainant asked for the payment of Rs.2 Crores and hence, the same was considered. No such circumstance is warranted in the case on - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010706952024 NC: 2026:KHC:37887 CRL.RP No. 1613 of 2024 hand as the amount was interchanged in thousands and hence, the said judgment will not come to the aid of the revision petitioner. No ground is made out to admit the revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37