- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 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. 90 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. REEGAN S/O SMT. JAYANTHI RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ABHILASH NILAYA (SMT. JAYANATHI RAMANCHANDRA NILAYA) No. 293, 8TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN M S RAMAIAAH LAYOUT HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 073. (ABOVE ADDRESS AS PER THE JUDGEMENT CAUSE TITLE) ACTUAL NAME WITH ADDRESS VELA JOHNY REEGAN I J AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O IMMANAVUVEL JOSEPH S AND JESENTHA MARY 5(FIVE) STAR BUILDING 1ST CROSS, MOSQUE STREET PEENYA Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 BANGALORE - 500 058. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE L MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT No. 32/11, 1ST MAIN ROAD 9TH CROSS, BHOVI PALYA MAHALXMIPURA BANGALORE - 560 086. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMALINGE GOWDA H A, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.A.No.2599/2018 DATED 11.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56) AND THE CONVICTION ORDER DATED 19.11.2018 AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.No.13002/2015 BY THE XXVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel Sri.B.Sharath Kumar and learned counsel Sri.Ramalinge Gowda.H.A for the parties. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.13002/2015, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.2599/2018, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that, the accused approached the complainant seeking financial help in a sum of Rs.50,000/- for meeting of his financial necessities, assuring repayment within two months. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 3.2 Considering the request made by the accused, the complainant has lent a sum of Rs.50,000/- as hand loan on 04.10.2014. But as agreed, there was no repayment. On repeated demands, a cheque bearing No.373972 dated 27.02.2015 came to be issued in a sum of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Peenya Branch, Bangalore - 560 058 which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, a legal notice as is contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be issued calling upon the accused to make good the amount covered under the cheque. 4. There was no compliance to the callings of notice nor there was any reply. Thereafter, complainant approached the Court for taking action against the accused. 5. Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities summoned the accused and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, she got examined herself as PW1 and placed on record seven documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, comprising of dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgment, net tracking report and bank statement. 7. As against the said material evidence placed on record, accused got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record seven documentary evidence which was on record and were exhibited and marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7, comprising of unserved postal cover, certified copy of the complaint in CC No.13001/2015, certified copy of the complaint in CC No.12962/2015, certified copy of the cheque in those cases, driving licence and cumulative record of the accused. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 8. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and disbelieved the version of the accused and convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to accused to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- as the fine amount, of which sum of Rs.60,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.2599/2018. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and re-appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal by a considered judgment dated 11.10.2022. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this Revision. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri. B.Sharath Kumar reiterating the grounds added in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 revision petition vehemently contends that complainant is a stranger to the accused and the cheque in question was in fact issued to one Kamal and who in turn handed over the same to the complainant and there is a misuse of the cheque which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts though several admissions are elicited in this regard in the cross-examination of PW1 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the Revision Petition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P1 - cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 14. Admittedly, cheque came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' and legal notice is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 caused to the accused which according to the accused is not served on him, as address shown in the legal notice is not that of the accused. 15. Pertinently, there is no compliance on callings of the notice. The complainant has specifically stated that he has lent a hand loan in a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the accused on 04.10.2014 and cheque in question came to be issued towards repayment of the said person. 16. Oral evidence of the complainant coupled with the necessary documentary evidence placed on record, was sufficient enough for the trial court to raise the presumption as is contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as is held in Rangappa V/s. Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 and Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148 respectively. 17. No doubt such a presumption is rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the presumption - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 available to the complainant, accused got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record seven documentary evidence as referred supra. 18. In other words, accused wanted to impress upon the trial Magistrate to the effect that complainant is a stranger and cheque in question was issued to accused, who in turn handed over same to the complainant, who is a stranger to the accused and there is a misuse of the cheque that has been issued to the complainant. To establish the said aspect of the matter in the first place, Sri.Kamal is cited as witness but not summoned before the court. Further, as a normal prudent person would act in such attended circumstances, there is no criminal complaint lodged against Kamal and complainant for the alleged misuse of the cheque . Merely on the ground that PW1 has admitted that she use to talk to Kamal every day and before coming to Court, she use to have conversation with Kamal, that itself would not be sufficient enough to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 prove that cheque was actually issued to Kamal by the complainant. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt seriously contended that the complainant had no lending capacity. Such a evidence is impermissible in view of the principles of law as stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJESH JAIN supra. 20. Thus, the defense that has been taken by the accused has not been established by placing cogent and convincing material evidence on record, the presumption remains un-rebutted and therefore, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference, that too in revision jurisdiction. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15688 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2023 21. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38