- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12500 CRL.RP No. 1408 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1408 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI.M.VENKATARAMAN S/O LATE D.MUNISWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.918, 9TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, HRBR I PHASE, BANGALORE- 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.R.SRINIVASN S/O V.RANGASWAMY, AGED 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.435, 3RD A BLOCK, HRBR II BLOCK, BANGALORE- 560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D., ADVOCATE) 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 AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.1629/2018 DATED 04.10.2021 WHEREIN THE LEARNED JUDGE OF FIRST APPELLATE COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.26983/2012 BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND XXXIII ACMM, BANGALORE DATED Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12500 CRL.RP No. 1408 of 2021 02.08.2018 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE R.P. IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT. 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.Shekarappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Raghunath M. D., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.26983/2012 dated 02.08.2018 on the file of XXXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed in Crl.A.No.1629/2018 dated 04.10.2021 on the file of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12500 CRL.RP No. 1408 of 2021 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.2. Complaint averments would reveal that accused has agreed to sell the property bearing No.145, New No.70 situated at Armstrong Road, Civil Station, Bengaluru for a total consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- and after receipt of Rs.9,00,000/- by way of cash as advance amount, delivered the original documents to the complainant. 3.3. After receipt of said advance amount, informed the complainant that he could not perform his part of the contract since he wanted more time for getting the consent from his family members and agreement of sell came to be terminated and towards repayment of the advance amount, accused issued two cheques amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- bearing Nos.622793 and 622794 dated 29.02.2012 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12500 CRL.RP No. 1408 of 2021 respectively. Both the cheques on presentation, dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 3.4. Statutory notice was issued by the complainant calling upon the accused to make good the payment. There was no compliance to the callings of the notice, nor reply to the legal notice. 3.5. Thereafter, the complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate on completing necessary formalities, recorded the evidence of the complainant and got examined himself as P.W.1 and one witness Suguna as P.W.2 and marked 13 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 13 comprising of two cheques, bank endorsement, office copy of the legal notice, unserved postal cover, sale agreement, sale deed executed by mother of the accused and tax paid receipts. 5. As against the evidence placed on record by the complainant, there was no defence evidence placed on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12500 CRL.RP No. 1408 of 2021 record. Cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2 did not yield any positive materials so as to accept the case of the accused that the cheques were not issued by him. 6. Taking note of the same, learned Trial Magistrate raised the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of defence evidence, convicted the accused and ordered to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as the compensation amount and sum of Rs.50,000/- as the fine amount. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1629/2018. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 04.10.2021, dismissed the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12500 CRL.RP No. 1408 of 2021 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, Exs.P.1 and 2 - cheques belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12500 CRL.RP No. 1408 of 2021 14. To substantiate the fact that cheques were issued towards repayment of the advance amount, sale agreement is placed on record. 15. Legal notice is admittedly not received by the accused. Cheques were dishonored as per the bank endorsement on the ground that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the accused. 16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 17. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the said presumption, there is no contra evidence placed on record nor any useful material is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2 so as to rebut the presumption. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12500 CRL.RP No. 1408 of 2021 18. Under such circumstances, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 19. Accordingly, following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47