- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13725 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.576 OF 2018 BETWEEN: B V CHETAN S/O. M. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS BUSINESS, SILVER ARTICLE SALES, R/O. No.21/3/14TH B, AGARAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.N.UMESH FOR SRI VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATES) AND: L RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT. NO.623, 10TH CROSS, SRINAGAR PIPE LINE, BENGALURU – 560 050. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI FELIX RAJA FOR SRI S.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 09.10.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.No.20944/2015 THEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13725 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2018 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT AND SENTENCED HIM TO PAY A FINE OF RS. 2,50,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I FOR 3 MONTHS, THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED, AND THE SET ASIDE ORDER OF THE LEARNED LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.No.1515/2017 DATED 23.03.2018 DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri M.N. Umesh, appearing on behalf of Sri Vijaykumar Prakash, counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Felix Raja, appearing on behalf of Sri S. Srikanth, counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.20944/2015, confirmed in CrL.A.No.1515/2017 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. In respect of a cheque issued by the accused, which got dishonored, a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed seeking action for the offence - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13725 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2018 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate on receipt of the complaint, after completing necessary formalities secured the presence of the accused recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record thirteen documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, legal notice, speed post cover, portal acknowledgment, money lending business license, loan application of the accused, voucher, on demand promissory note, photocopy of the election identity card of the accused. 6. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and did not choose to place any defence evidence on record. 7. Thereafter learned trial judge heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13725 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2018 Act and ordered sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as the fine amount of which amount of Rs.2,48,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the accused and balance amount Rs.2,000/- towards the defraying expense of the state. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.1515/2017. 9. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after affording sufficient opportunity noted that the conditions imposed for passing the order of suspension was not complied and the counsel for appellant remained absent consistently, dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. 10. Thereafter accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Sri Umesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the Trial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the defence taken by the accused and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. 12. He would further contend that the appeal of the accused could not have been dismissed for non prosecution for the want of presence of the counsel for accused which has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13725 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2018 resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra counsel for the respondent Sri.Felix Raja, representing Sri Srikanth, supports the impugned judgment. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, complainant has stated before the Court that in the first week of August 2014, accused approached the complainant and borrowed sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with a promise to repay the same and towards the repayment, issued a cheque bearing number 661967 which on presentation came to be dishonored and there was no compliance to the callings of notice though served on the accused. 16. Since the dishonoured cheque belongs to accused and signature found therein is that of the accused, the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption in favour of the complaint as is contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the supporting corroboratory material in the form of loan application on demand promissory note. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13725 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2018 17. No doubt such a presumption is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, accused got himself examined as D.W.1 but did not choose to place any documentary evidence on record. 18. Learned trial judge has taken note of the oral testimony of D.W.1 and recorded a categorical finding that the same was not sufficient to rebut the presumption nor cross examination of P.W.1 did not yield any positive material so as to hold that the cheque was not issued for the legally recoverable debt and convicted the accused. 19. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after noting the conduct of the revision petitioner in not complying the conditions of the interim order in depositing the portion of the fine amount before the First Appellate Court afforded sufficient opportunity and thereafter dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. 20. No doubt, it is settled principles of law that an appeal filed by an accused cannot be dismissed for non prosecution. 21. But, having regard to the nature of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, being quasi - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13725 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2018 civil and quasi criminal, the said proposition that the appeal cannot be dismissed for non prosecution cannot be made applicable in a matter of this nature, especially when the accused has engaged the advocate and advocate remained absent consistently. In other words, criminal prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with appeal or other State instituted prosecution. 22. Accordingly, the order of the Trial Magistrate and dismissal of the appeal filed by the accused needs no interference in this revision in view of the fact that accused failed to rebut the presumption available to complainant under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 23. Hence, the following ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64