- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 58 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O UMESH NAYAR R/AT PROP DEEPTHI TRADERS RAJASDHANI TOWERS UPPINANGADY PUTTUR TALUK D.K. -574 201. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI CHANDRASHEKAR KAMATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O KRISHNA KAMATH R/AT ALETTY VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK D K DISTRICT -574 239. &RESPONDENT Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 (BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.11.2022 IN CRL.A.No.5004/2022 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K., AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 24.09.2021 IN C.C.No.1286/2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SULLIA D.K., AND MAY BE ACQUITTED THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel Sri.Rajaram.S and learned counsel Sri.Mohan Chandra.P for the parties. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.1286/2019 confirmed in Crl.A.No.5004/2022 is the revision petitioner. 3. The facts of the case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 In respect of a dishonored cheque issued by the accused, criminal prosecution was launched by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The complaint averments would reveal that the accused said to have purchased coconuts from the complainant and in that regard towards the price of the coconut that has been supplied by the complainant, Ex.P1 cheque came to be issued which on presentation came to be dishonored and there was no compliance to the callings of the notice though duly served. Therefore, criminal prosecution was launched. 3.2 Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities recorded the plea of the accused and submitted the plea. 3.3 Thereafter, complainant got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record six documentary evidence which were executed and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. During the course of cross-examination two bank challans, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 counter foils were confronted to PW1 which are admitted by him and marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, which are pertaining to the year August 2018. 3.4. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, there is no defence evidence either oral or documentary, except Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. 3.5. Thereafter, learned trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and noted that the defence taken by the accused that the cheque in question was issued at the time of getting the borewell dug from the complainant as security and the same is misused by the complainant is not raised by placing necessary evidence on record and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced as under: "Acting under Section 255 (2) R/W 264 of CrPC the accused is hereby convicted for the offence P/U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case the accused is hereby sentenced to pay fine of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 Rs. 2,10,000/- (Two lakhs and ten thousand only) in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. In view of Section 357 of CrPC complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only). And defray remaining fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) to state. The bail bond and surety bond furnished by canceled. the accused stand cancelled." 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.5004/2022. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 05.11.2022, dismissed the appeal. 5. Thereafter accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Sri.Rajaram.S learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner reiterating the grounds that were raised in the petition would vehemently contend that in the cross- examination, suggestions have been made to PW1 that the cheque in question was misused which was given at the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 time of digging the borewell and therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt in Ex.P1, which has been not appreciated by both the Courts properly, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing revision petition. 7. Per contra, Sri.Mohan Chandra.P, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned orders. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that Ex.P1 belongs to accused and signature found herein is that of the accused. 10. According to complainant, he has supplied the coconuts to the accused and towards the price of the coconuts, the cheque in question came to be issued which is admittedly dishonored. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 11. It is pertinent to note that there is no reply to the callings of the legal notice. 12. By oral testimony of the complainant coupled with the documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 would be sufficient enough to raising the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant as complainant has discharged the initial burden. However, to rebut the said presumption, there is no defence evidence on record placed by the accused at all. Cross-examination of PW1 did not yield any positive material so as to rebut the presumption availed to the complainant. 13. The alternate theory put forward as a defence by the accused that there is a misuse of the cheque is not probabilised by placing necessary material evidence on record. No complaint to the police is filed. If there is actually a misappropriation of the valuable security, namely the cheque marked at Ex.P1, no normal prudent person would keep quiet if he has come to know that there - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 is a misuse of the cheque by the complainant at least after he engaged the services of an advocate, when he defended the case before the trial Magistrate. 14. Further, the theory of the cheque being parted away by the accused at the time of digging the borewell is also not probabilised by placing necessary material evidence on record. Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are pertaining to the amount paid by the accused to the complainant account in the year 2018, to be more specific on 13.08.2018 and 16.08.2018. 15. Admittedly, cheque is issued in the month of July 2019. Therefore, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of trial Magistrate and that of the First Appellate Court in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 16. Accordingly, the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15630 CRL.RP No. 58 of 2023 ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36