- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21334 CRL.RP No. 1217 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1217 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. S. VENKATESAN S/O. LATE MR. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 70, MPN ALTIVS APARTMENT, FIRST FLOOR, DOOR NO. 206, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. FEROZE NIZAM A., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. S. DINESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. MR. SADHASHIVA RAO, NO.52/18/19, 5TH MAIN, PUTTANA SHETTY ROAD, NEAR SRINIVASA KALYANA MANTAPA, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RACHANA BHARADHWAJ R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION IN JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE COURT FOR SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21334 CRL.RP No. 1217 of 2022 C.C.No.4273/2018 AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56) BANGALORE IN CRL.A.No.1918/2019 DATED 25.08.2022 AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS TO REMAND THE CASE FOR RETRIAL BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Feroze Nizam A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Rachana Bharadhwaj, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Settlement not reported and therefore matter is heard on merits. 3. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.4273/2018, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1918/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced as under. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21334 CRL.RP No. 1217 of 2022  “Acting under Section 255[2] of Cr.P.C, the Accused are hereby convicted for the offence Punishable U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act.  The accused shall pay fine of Rs.5,30,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused person shall under go Simple Imprisonment for six months.  Out of the amount so realized, the Accused shall pay a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- to the Complainant as compensation, as provided U/s.357 Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State.  The bail bond and surety bond of the accused is hereby stand cancelled.  Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the Accused.” 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 5. A private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that, complainant and accused are family friends and accused borrowed sum of Rs.4,75,000/- and issued five cheques towards the repayment of the amount which on presentation came to be dishonored with an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21334 CRL.RP No. 1217 of 2022 endorsement ‘Insufficient Funds’. Legal notice was issued wherein accused has admitted liability, but failed to comply the same. Therefore, complainant has filed private complaint. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities held due trial noted that accused did not choose to lead any evidence raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence Exs.P1 to Ex.P12 and convicted and sentenced as referred to supra which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 7. Before this Court, the counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that petitioner did not deny the transaction, but in the cross examination of PW1, suggestions have been made that the story set up by the complainant is incorrect and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Learned Trial Magistrate has taken note of said defence in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the impugned judgment which reads as under: “23. The complainant has discharged necessary legal ingredients to draw presumption in her favour about - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21334 CRL.RP No. 1217 of 2022 the transaction between himself and Accused. Therefore it can be said that, the complainant has produced better document and deposed better oral evidence rather than the defence of the accused. Hence the evidence of complainant stands good compared to the oral evidence of the accused. Inspite of lapse of one year the Accused did not take any action for misuse of blank signed cheques for the reason best known to him only. Therefore best evidence always stands good compared to non rebuttable evidence. In the present case the issuance of cheque is proved. It is for the Accused to explain the purpose of issuance of cheques. Once the act of misuse of cheques were not proved automatically, it can be believed that, said cheques have been issued only for recoverable existed debt. 24. Therefore the theory of the Accused is unbelievable and not proved. Hence, the complainant is entitled for benefit of statutory presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of the Act. I did not find any informalities or contradictions elicited to render their evidence incredible. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence to believe and to act upon the evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P12 are consistence, corroborative and supporting to each other and in accordance with the case of the complainant and which leads me to conclude that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused for the alleged - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21334 CRL.RP No. 1217 of 2022 offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.” 9. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court rightly re-appreciated the same while dismissing the appeal of the accused. Therefore, this Court having regard to the minimum scope in the revisional jurisdiction for reviving into factual aspects and also taking note of the fact that there is an admission in the reply notice, does not find any grounds, whatsoever much less good grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 65