- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14444 CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1272 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI.K.M.ARJUN, S/O. K. M. N. RATHNAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, KOTALA DINNE HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, PIN-561 208. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHUL P., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.C.S.SRINIVAS, S/O. VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT KUPPAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, PIN- 562 103. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14444 CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2021 THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 20.03.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.407/2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKABALLAPURA AND JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 23.06.2020 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.26/2014 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA. 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.Rahul.P, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivaram, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Shivakumar.V, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.407/2006 dated 20.03.2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14444 CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2021 Instruments Act which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.26/2014 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. In respect of the financial transaction accused had with the complainant, having borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards repayment, issued a cheque bearing No.351269 drawn on Vysya Bank Limited, Gowribidanur Branch on 30.01.2006, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'account closed'. 3.2. There was no compliance to the callings of the notice. Thereafter, learned trial judge after completing the formalities, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14444 CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2021 3.3. After due trial imposed fine of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- defraying expenses of the State which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.26/2014. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 5. 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. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14444 CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2021 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque marked at Ex.P2 belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 9. According to the complainant, towards repayment of the loan, cheque in question came to be issued. There are no compliance to the callings of notice. The defence taken by the accused is that the cheque was lost and the complainant has misused the same. 10. To establish the said aspect of the matter there is no positive action taken by the accused. Though accused has contended that a complaint to the police was lodged in this regard, copy of the complaint is not placed on record nor any investigation papers are placed on record. 11. Further, assuming that the lost cheque has been misused by the complainant, how would the complainant would come to know that it is belonging to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14444 CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2021 the accused and his address for issue of notice is a question that remains unanswered. 12. Taking note of all these aspects, the defence taken by the accused was not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 13. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by both the Courts needs no interference. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20