- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1164 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR R S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 4, 11th CROSS, PARSI LAYOUT, SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560003 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PANCHAM R D., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SHIVARAJ K S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 9, 2ND CROSS, BYRAVESHWARANAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, LAGGERE BENGALURU 560058 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED THOUHID, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATH G KANDEKAR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.05.2017 PASSED BY THE XX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20579/2016 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS, BENGALURU (CCH-57) IN CRL.A.NO.838/2017. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Pancham.R.D, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Mohammed Thouhid, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Manjunath G.Kandekar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment dated 04.05.2017 in CC No.20579/2016 on the file of the Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, and sentenced as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 “ORDER Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/S 138 of N.I. Act and accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,10,000/- (Seven Lakh Ten Thousand only). In default thereof accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (Three) months. The fine if realized, Rs.7,00,000/-(Seven Lakh only), there from shall be paid to the complainant as a compensation, remaining fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.” 3. The accused challenged the order of conviction and sentence before the Court of the LVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57) in Crl. Appeal No.838/2017. 4. 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 on record, by considered judgment dated 04.07.2022, dismissed the appeal. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 6. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 6.1. A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC came to be filed by the respondent/complainant against the accused alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that, the accused approached the complainant for a hand loan of ₹3,00,000/- in the month of January 2015 and he borrowed another sum of ₹3,00,000/- and agreed to repay the total sum of ₹6,00,000/- after selling the constructed house. 6.2. Accused sold the house to Sri. Krisnamurty who is none other than the brother-in-law of the accused for a huge sum of ₹2,30,00,000/- in the month of May 2015 and when complainant demanded for repayment of ₹6,00,000/- which was taken as hand loan to complete the construction, the accused issued a cheque bearing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 No.509409 dated 06.05.2016 for a sum of ₹6,00,000/-, which on presentation, came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 6.3. A legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque. The accused failed to comply the callings of notice nor replied the same and therefore, action was sought. 7. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 8. In order to prove his case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record five documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P5 comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, office copy of the legal notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment. For the reasons best known to the accused, he did not choose to file any application under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act to cross examine PW1 as is directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 5 SCC 590]. Likewise, he did not also choose to lead any rebuttal evidence/defence evidence. 9. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate, on considering the probative value of the oral testimony and documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P5, noted that complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which stood unrebutted, and convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 10. Thereafter, the accused having failed to get the order set aside before the First Appellate Court, is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Sri. Pancham, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 would contend that, no fair opportunity was granted to the accused to cross examine PW1, nor to place defence evidence, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 11.1. He would further contend that, if an opportunity is granted, the accused would participate in the trial further by cross-examining PW1 and also lead defence evidence in a time bound manner, and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Per contra, Sri. Mohammed Thouhid, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the revision grounds and supports the impugned judgments. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. Complainant has stated that, accused borrowed ₹3,00,000/- each on two occasions and towards the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 repayment of ₹6,00,000/-, cheque in question came to be issued, which stood dishonored for want of funds and therefore, a legal notice was issued. 15. Admittedly, there was no compliance to the callings of notice, nor there was any reply. Thus, the complainant has discharged the initial burden which was sufficient enough to invoke the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 16. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association (supra), the accused was required to file an application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act if he had a valid defence and seek permission of the Court to cross- examine PW1. Accused has failed to do so. 17. As such, the case should have commenced from the defence evidence and since the accused failed to lead any defence evidence, complainant has been examined as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18955 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2022 PW1. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, in the absence of any application filed by the accused making out a defence under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking for permission to cross examine PW1, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no proper opportunity granted by the Trial Magistrate for cross examining PW1 and permitting the accused to lead defence evidence, cannot be countenanced in law, that too, under the revisional jurisdiction. 18. Accordingly, this Court does not find any grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38