- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673282024 NC: 2026:KHC:38047 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2024 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. 1554 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RANGANATHA R S/O RAMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT 10TH CROSS SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,TUMKUR, OFFICE: FIVE STAR BUSINESS FINANCE LTD, SREE SIDDALINGESHWARA SWAMY ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD, VIVEKANANDA ROAD,TUMKUR 572102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR H V,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH G S/O GOVINDAPPA Y N, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO FOREST QUARTERS SIRIGERE,AYANUR POST SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, PERMANENT R/O P D KOTE, DHARMAPURA POST,HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 596. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P N HARISH,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673282024 NC: 2026:KHC:38047 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA IN APPEAL NO.135/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.968/2021 DATED 15.07.2023 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M AT SHIVAMOGGA AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR 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 Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This matter is listed for admission. 3. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the trial Court is that accused and the complainant are known to each other for several years. The accused - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673282024 NC: 2026:KHC:38047 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2024 has approached the complainant for financial assistance for the purpose of his house construction. The complainant considered the request and lend the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of January 2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the month of March 2016, Rs.1,00,000 in the month of April 2016, Rs.1,50,000 in the month of May 2016, Rs.1,50,000 in the month of July 2016, and Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of September 2016 in all total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as hand loan and accused has agreed for repayment of the said amount within January 2017 and after lapse of period of 6 months, accused was requested to repay the said amount but the accused postponed the same by giving one or other false reasons. Ultimately, he gave the cheque on 18.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. When the cheque was presented, the same was dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the notice was issued and the same was returned with a postal shara ‘addressee not available’. Thereafter, the complaint was filed, cognizance - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673282024 NC: 2026:KHC:38047 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2024 was taken and accused was secured. He did not plead guilty and claims trial. 4. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, the accused confronted documents Exs.D1 and D2, but did not choose to enter into the witness box. The trial court having taken note of the defence which was taken with regard to the service of notice as well as no such transaction and cheque was given to complainant’s father in connection with chit transaction, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the defence that cheque was given to the father of complainant towards the chit transaction is not substantiated and not placed any material before the Court, even not entered into the witness box. Further, in the cross examination, a suggestion made to the P.W.1 wherein he was categorically denied with regard to the chit transaction. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673282024 NC: 2026:KHC:38047 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2024 5. The other contention that notice was not served and the complainant relies upon the last known address of the accused and Ex.P3 is the legal notice and returned postal cover is Ex.P4 with a postal shara that ‘addressee not available’. The record also discloses that notice sent to the accused was returned with postal shara that ‘for 9 days, he had visited the house of the accused but he was absent on all the dates. Hence, the same was returned. But the accused did not place any material on record to substantiate that the address mentioned in the legal notice is not correct and even not denied the address that it is not his address. The accused even not led any evidence and placed any record to show that the address is not correct. When such being the case, General Clause 27 is very clear that presumption must be drawn if the address is correct and also if no other address is put forth by the accused regarding service of the notice is concerned that he was not residing in the said address. It has to be presumed that notice is served and hence convicted and - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673282024 NC: 2026:KHC:38047 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2024 sentence the accused. The said order is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.135/2023 wherein the appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record in paragraph No.38 comes to the conclusion with regard to the very contention that chit transaction is concerned, absolutely there is no evidence to prove and substantiate the same. This fact is discussed in paragraph Nos.38 and 39 of the judgment of the appeal Court that when the accused failed to produce any contra evidence to show that he was residing at some other place at the time of issuance of the said legal notice comes to the conclusion that benefit of presumption lies in favour of the complainant and accused failed to lead any evidence against the contra evidence of the complainant and confirmed the judgment and also the sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court in this revision. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673282024 NC: 2026:KHC:38047 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2024 6. Having considered the material on record, the very same grounds are urged before this Court that no notice was served and also contend that cheque was given in respect of chit transaction in favour of father of complainant and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record and the same is considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. When the specific defence was taken that cheque was given for the chit transaction that too in favour of complainant’s father, the same is not substantiated and there is no any rebuttal evidence before the Court. Further, with regard to service of summons also, both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court taken note of that when the address was not denied by the accused unless contrary is proved by the accused, question of entertaining the revision on the said ground also does not arise. When such reasoning is given by the trial Court and the appellate Court, the orders do not suffer from its legality and correctness and also in miscarriage of justice in considering the evidence, Hence, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673282024 NC: 2026:KHC:38047 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2024 I do not find any grounds to entertain the revision petition and scope of revision is very limited. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30