- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38125 CRL.RP No. 196 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.196 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. S.F. CERAMICS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.28, IDDAYA COMPLEX KOTHNUR POST, GEDDALAHALLI BENGALURU-560 077 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SABU FRANCIS S/O M.T. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. USMAN P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.C.M. RAJAN S/O K.A. NARAYANA MENON AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.137, 2ND CROSS 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.07.2022 PASSED BY LXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38125 CRL.RP No. 196 of 2025 CRL.A.NO.1470/2018 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.06.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1821/2017 BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXI A.C.M.M, BENGALURU CITY AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 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. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that complainant himself and accused are well acquainted with each other and out of acquaintance, the accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.6,00,000/- in order to meet his financial difficulties and accordingly, he paid Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash to the accused and the accused promised to repay the said loan amount at the earliest. But, he failed to repay the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38125 CRL.RP No. 196 of 2025 loan as assured, inspite of his repeated requests and demands. Finally, the accused had issued a Cheque dated 07.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and assured that remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be returned within two months. 4. The complainant presented the said Cheque for encashment and the same has returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, on 23.11.2016, the complainant informed the accused about dishonour of Cheque and demanded complete repayment of money, for which the accused made payment of Rs.50,000/- through NEFT transfer and assured that he will repay rest of the amount within a month, but, he failed to repay the same. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice on 02.12.2016 through RPAD to the accused to make payment of the Cheque. Despite service of notice, accused failed to pay the amount. Therefore, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken, accused was secured, he did not comply with the demand and he did not plead not guilty and claims for trial. 5. The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38125 CRL.RP No. 196 of 2025 Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The accused did not choose to lead evidence. However, cross-examined P.W.1. 6. Now, the main contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that when the complainant, immediately after dishonour of the Cheque he informed orally in the office of the accused on 23.11.2016, the complaint ought to have been filed within one month from that date. Hence, the Trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance and proceeded against the petitioner and on that ground, the revision petition is not maintainable and this Court has to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that defence was taken that the accused had borrowed only an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the same was repaid and acknowledged and at no point of time, he received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid to the accused and subsequently, he made payment of Rs.50,000/- on issuance of legal notice and when the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38125 CRL.RP No. 196 of 2025 complainant had orally informed the accused about dishonour Cheque, but he did not pay the balance amount though he undertook to pay the same. Hence, legal notice was issued on 02.12.2016 and the same was served on 03.12.2016 and complaint was filed within time. Therefore, the very contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The counsel would submit that when the said defence was taken and Cheque was admitted, the fact accused had only availed an amount of Rs.50,000/- is not substantiated by leading any defence evidence and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and there is no rebuttal evidence. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, it is the specific case of the complainant that accused availed the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. Though, he took time to repay, but he did not repay the amount and Cheque was issued and when the Cheque was presented, it was dishonoured and the complainant orally informed the accused about dishonour of Cheque, but the accused made the payment of Rs.50,000/-, but not made payment to the entire extent of amount what he - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38125 CRL.RP No. 196 of 2025 has received. It has to be noted that, subsequent to dishonour of Cheque, legal notice was issued within time i.e., on 02.12.2016 and it was served on 03.12.2016. Though, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when he orally informed the accused on 23.11.2016 itself, the limitation starts from that date and not from the date of issuance of legal notice and the said argument cannot be accepted for the reason that dishonour of Cheque was informed to the accused orally, but, legal notice was issued on 02.12.2016 and the same was served on 03.12.2016 and complaint was filed within time and the first limb of argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. The second limb of argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that accused had taken only an amount of Rs.50,000/- and repaid the said amount. But, in order to prove the said factum that he had borrowed only an amount of Rs.50,000/-, nothing is placed on record and even, he did not choose to enter into the witness box to rebut the evidence of complainant. But, complainant produced the Cheque and cheque is admitted, signature is also admitted and - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38125 CRL.RP No. 196 of 2025 no probable defence is raised. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence against the case of complainant, very contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Having perused the reasoning of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, both the Courts have not committed any error in considering the material available on record. 10. The other contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as against the Cheque given by the accused for Rs.5,00,000/-, the Trial Court sentenced the accused to pay an amount Rs.6,00,000/- and the same is exorbitant cannot be accepted. The case was filed in the year 2017 and it was disposed of in the year 2018. Having taken note of amount and the transaction of the year 2016, the said contention cannot be accepted and the same is not disproportionate as contented by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the very proviso is very clear that, in case of default in payment of Cheque amount by the accused, the Court can even award double the Cheque amount. But, in the case on hand, the Trial Court has only awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in excessive of the Cheque for an amount of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38125 CRL.RP No. 196 of 2025 Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, on that ground also, the revision is not sustainable. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the revision petition, pending I.As, if any do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37