- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1784 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRAPPA AMBIGER, S/O PUTTAPPA AMBIGER, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. HALESHA R. GAVIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. APPARAO S. NAVALE S/O LATE. SRIPRASAD RAO A NAVALE, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.453/B, 4TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, 9TH BLOCK, BENGALURU. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570/2024 DATED 02.09.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61) PASSED BY CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CC NO.24668/2019 DATED 01.03.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Halesha R. Gavimath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Raghavendra K., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Criminal Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.24668/2019, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.570/2024 and enhancement of the fine amount sought for by the complainant is also dismissed in Criminal Appeal No.705/2024 by common judgment. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 3.1 A private complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed by the petitioner alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused is a friend of the complainant for about 25 years who approached the complainant in third week of January 2015 with a request of lending the hand loan to meet his legal needs. 3.2 Accordingly, in the month of October from 2015 to October 2016, complainant in all advanced a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- and towards the repayment of the same, a Cheque bearing No.000066 dated 25.04.2019 in a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Bangalore came to be issued which on presentation came to be dishonored with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. 3.3 Legal notice was issued by the complainant demanding the payment covered under the Cheque. An untenable and evasive reply came to be issued by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 accused and therefore action was sought by the complainant. 3.4 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities summoned the accused and followed the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 5 SCC 510 and treated the affidavit filed by the complainant as examination-in-chief. 3.5 Accused statement was also recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate putting across the incriminatory circumstances found in the affidavit. Thereafter accused got examined himself as DW1 and marked eleven documents vide Exhibits D1 to D11 comprising of the copy of the reply, Postal receipt and postal acknowledgment, Notice dated 10.02.2021, Postal acknowledgment, Acknowledgment of registration of firms, registration letter - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 and other documents, partnership deed and bank statement. 3.6 In the nutshell, accused took a defence that Mayanna and accused were conducting the partnership firm and in that regard some amount was pooled in and towards the and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was already repaid, but Lokesh has misused the cheque which was given to the Mayanna and handed over the said cheque to complainant who is a totally stranger to the accused and thus sought for acquittal. 3.7 Further, the Trial Magistrate noting the fact that said Mayanna is not examined as a witness nor the Lokesh on behalf of the accused for the alleged misuse of the cheque besides taking any action against the complainant for the misuse of the cheque and noted that the defence evidence was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed sum of Rs.9,95,000/- as the fine amount as against the cheque amount of Rs.9,75,000/-. Out of the fine amount, cheque amount of Rs.9,75,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.20,000/- was ordered to be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State. 3.8 Being aggrieved by the order of conviction accused filed appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.570/2024. 3.9 As against the quantum of sentence in awarding cheque amount alone as the compensation, complainant also filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.705/2024. 3.10 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 detail and by common judgment dated 02.09.2025 dismissed both the appeals. 4. Thereafter accused is before this Court in this revision whereas complainant is satisfied with the dismissal of his appeal confirming the grant of compensation in a sum of Rs.9,75,000/-. 5. Sri. Halesha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that there is no privity of transaction between complainant and accused. During the partnership business, cheque which was given to the partner by name Lokesh has been taken by Mayanna. Said Mayanna has in turn handed over the same to the complainant herein and there is a misuse of the cheque even after sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been settled between accused and Lokesh. 6. To substantiate said contention, he would further contend that the question of payment of any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 compensation to the present petitioner would not arise inasmuch as Cheque marked at Exhibit P1 did not carry any legally recoverable debt as there is no privity of transaction between the complainant and accused. 7. He would further emphasize that said Lokesh being a government employee directed that his share of the amount be transferred onto different persons and as per his directions, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was also transferred to the present complainant and despite the same, a false case got hoisted by Lokesh through the complainant and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, Sri. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant would support the impugned order. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 10. On such perusal of material on record, there is no dispute that Exhibit P1 cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 11. Even according to the accused, he had a partnership business along with one Lokesh who was a Government employee. According to him, Lokesh had pooled in Rs.7,00,000/- whereas the accused has contributed about Rs.12,00,000/- for partnership business as investment. 12. However the business ran into losses. Therefore towards the repayment of Rs.5,00,000/- to the share of Lokesh, as per his instructions, amounts were transferred to different persons including the present petitioner in a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per Exhibit D11. 13. Therefore, accused is not liable to make any payment to the complainant who has been introduced to accused by Lokesh. 14. To prove such a contention, except marking Exhibit D11, no other material is placed on record. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 15. Further, neither Lokesh nor Mayanna are examined to substantiate the defence taken by the accused that there was a partnership business between Lokesh and accused. 16. No criminal action has been initiated by the accused as against the complainant, Lokesh and Mayanna even after service of summons in the case on hand. 17. Pertinently, no normal prudent person would keep quiet when there is a misuse of the cheque to the tune of Rs.9,75,000/- if there is no transaction at all with the complainant by the accused. 18. The accused had the services of an advocate soon after he received the legal notice inasmuch as Exhibit D1 - is the reply sent to the notice issued on behalf of complainant. Therefore, non-taking of necessary action against the petitioner against the complainant, Lokesh or Mayana by the accused would expose the hollowness in the defence of the accused. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 19. Complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. The oral testimony of DW1 (accused) coupled with marking of documentary evidence vide Exhibit D1 to D11 was not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 20. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate convicting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the aid of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is just and proper especially when the accused has failed to probabilize his defence by placing cogent evidence on record. Hence Order of conviction is upheld. 21. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, complainant has approached the First Appellate Court and so also the accused. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 22. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals. 23. Taking note of the fact that lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, awarding sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the defying expense of the state need to be set aside. 24. So also taking note of the fact that there is an entry of Rs.50,000/- in Exhibit D11 which is the bank statement of the accused wherein there is a payment made to the complainant in a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the fine amount is reduced from Rs.9,75,000/- needs to be reduced to Rs.9,25,000/-. 25. Pertinently, the transactions is of the year 2018. Therefore when the fine amount is not enhanced by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and confirmed the compensation amount of Rs.9,75,000/-, this Court does not find any good reasons to reduce further. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 26. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.9,75,000/- ordered by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is reduced to Rs.9,25,000/-. (ii) Entire sum of Rs.9,25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation (less already deposited) on or before 30.04.2026. (iii) A sum of Rs.20,000/- imposed by Trial Magistrate towards the defraying expense of the state is hereby set-aside. (iv) Office is directed to return Trial Court Records with copy of this Order for issue of modified order. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17908 CRL.RP No. 1784 of 2025 (v) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant, if not already withdrawn, under due identification. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26