- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15632 CRL.RP No. 51 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. 51 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI ATHMARAMA @ ATHMARAMA N AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O KUSHALAPPA GOWDA R/AT H NO 206 NANGARU HOUSE JALSOORU VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK , D.K - 574 239. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS G P A HOLDER SATHISH S/O VITTAL BANGERA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS PUTTUR BRANCH. D.K - 574 201. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAVEEN KUMAR M G, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15632 CRL.RP No. 51 of 2023 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.10.2022 IN CRL.A.No.5012/2022 PASSED BY THE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K., AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN C.C.No.170/2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS COURT AT SULLIA, D.K., AND MAY BE ACQUITTED THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I 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 Sri.Rajarama.S learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Naveen Kumar.M.G learned HCGP for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in CC No.170/2019, confirmed in Crl.A.No.5012/2022, is the revision petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15632 CRL.RP No. 51 of 2023 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition is as under: 3.1 Complainant, namely M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., lent a loan in a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- for purchase of goods vehicle namely VOLVO MECH 3512 to the accused and there was a hypothecation agreement. 3.2 Towards the repayment of the said loan, a cheque bearing No.253092 drawn on Corporation Bank, Sullia Branch, was issued by the accused which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. There was no compliance to the callings of notice nor there was any reply. 3.3 Therefore, the complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. Learned trial Magistrate after due trial noting that there was no defence evidence placed on record, raised the presumption in favour of the complainant under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15632 CRL.RP No. 51 of 2023 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on account of the fact that the complainant has placed necessary materials and discharged the initial burden and convicted the accused and directed the payment of fine amount of Rs.16,90,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.5012/2022. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused. 7. Thereafter accused is before this Court through this revision petition. 8. Sri.Rajarama.S, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that the cheque in question was not issued - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15632 CRL.RP No. 51 of 2023 towards the repayment of the loan amount and it was given as a security which has been misused by the complainant company. Said defence has not been properly appreciated by both the courts and wrongly recorded an order of conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on recorded meticulously. On such perusal of material on record, the transaction between the accused and the complainant stands established by placing necessary material documents on record. Admittedly, there was a loan transaction between the accused and the complainant. 11. It is the case of the complainant that towards the repayment of the loan, the cheque in question came to be issued, whereas it is the case of the accused that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15632 CRL.RP No. 51 of 2023 cheque in question was issued as a security and there was a misappropriation of the cheque. 12. If it is so, the accused is required to prove the same by placing necessary evidence on record. There is no defense evidence on record at all. 13. Further, if there is a misappropriation of the cheque as is contended by accused, some positive action was to be taken by the complainant against the accused. No such action is forthcoming. Pertinently, the callings of the legal notice is not answered by the accused though duly served. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the presumption available to the complainant is not rebutted by placing necessary oral or documentary evidence on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15632 CRL.RP No. 51 of 2023 15. Hence, recording of order of conviction by trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate court, needs no interference, that too in the revisional Jurisdiction. 16. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34