- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22807 CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1310 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO 2533, 7TH A MAIN ROAD HAMPINAGAR RPC LAYOUT 2ND STAGE VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560040. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHYA D., ADV. FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BYRAHANUMEGOWDA S/O DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.228, MUDDAIAHNAPALYA MAIN ROAD OPP., GOVERNMENT SCHOOL VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU 560091. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR A.S., ADV. FOR SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED LV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.166/2014, DATED 22.06.2022, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22807 CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2022 SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.27602/2009 DATED 28.01.2014. 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. Sathya D., for Sri. K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Anil Kumar A.S. for Sri. Parameshwarappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.27602/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "NI Act") and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,15,000/- which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2014. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act by contending that the accused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22807 CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2022 was acquainted with the complainant, who borrowed the money from the complainant on different dates, and towards the repayment of the hand loan, he issued a cheque bearing No.669458 in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.06.2009, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement "account closed". Legal notice came to be issued, which was duly served on the accused and there was no compliance with the callings of the notice, resulting in seeking action against the accused. 4. Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused. Recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined as PW1 and placed on record seven documents comprising the original dishonour cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, and postal receipt. 6. As against the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the complainant, the accused got examined himself as D.W.1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the address shown in the ID card and the address mentioned in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22807 CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2022 legal notice are one and the same, which got returned as "not claimed" and he also admitted that he was running Saritha Enterprises for a period of two years from 2005 to 2007, and since the said concern ran into losses, he has closed the same. 7. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and, taking note of the fact that the oral evidence of the accused was not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act, convicted the accused and imposed a fine of Rs.5,15,000/-. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.166/2014. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and, on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused by a considered judgment dated 22.06.2022. Thereafter, the accused is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22807 CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2022 10. Sri Satya D., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition 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. 11. He would further contend that the complainant has admitted that there was a prolonged execution by the accused, but the same is not produced to corroborate the stand taken by the complainant and therefore, a conviction of the accused is bad in law and sought for allowing the revision. 12. Per contra, Sri. Anil Kumar A.S., learned counsel representing the counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned judgment. 13. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that Ex.P1-cheque belongs to the accused and the signature found therein is that of the accused. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22807 CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2022 15. Admittedly, the accused has failed to claim the notice issued by the complainant under registered post acknowledgment due. Though he has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that the address mentioned in the RPAD cover is that of his address. 16. Further, the accused stepped into the witness box to rebut the presumption availed to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act and contended that he did not borrow the amount from the complainant and cheque was misused by the complainant. No criminal complaint has been lodged by the accused for the alleged misuse. 17. Further, suggestions were made to PW1 that the on-demand promissory note not being produced would not improve the case of the accused in rebutting the presumption available to the complainant, as the dishonored cheque is the basis for lodging the complaint. 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22807 CRL.RP No. 1310 of 2022 Court. this Court, having regard to the limited course, cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter. Hence, the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26