- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22461 CRL.RP No. 1340 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. 1340 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. MALLESHAIAH S/O SRI PARAMESHIVAIAH @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O 1ST FLOOR MAHADESHWARA HOSPITAL BUILDING RAYARADODDI CIRCLE RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562 159. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. CHIKKAMADAIAH S/O LATE SRI CHIKKAKENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O CHIKKGANGAVADI VILALGE KOTTAGAL HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK - 571 416. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H JAYANTH, ADVOCATE) -ABSENT- THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A.SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22461 CRL.RP No. 1340 of 2022 JUDGMENT OF THE 1st APPELLATE COURT DATED 24.01.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.NO.8/2021 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 02.01.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAMANAGARA IN C.C.NO.820/2017 AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION, ETC., 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.R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Revision Petitioner is an accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.820 of 2017 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22461 CRL.RP No. 1340 of 2022 3. Facts in the nut-shell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are as under:
A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., came to be filed with the Jurisdictional Magistrate at Ramanagara alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the complaint, it is contended that the complainant and accused are well acquainted with each other and in such acquaintance, in the month of February, 2015, accused borrowed loan to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- to save the mango groove from mortgage loan. Accused agreed to repay the same within a short span of time and towards the same, he issued a cheque bearing No.006976 dated 12.01.2016 drawn on Corporation Bank, Ramanagara Branch. The said cheque, on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement "account closed". - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22461 CRL.RP No. 1340 of 2022
There was no compliance to the callings of legal notice, which resulted in seeking action against the accused. 4. The learned Trial Magistrate, after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and as the accused pleaded 'not guilty', trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW-1 and placed on record seven documentary evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P7. 6. Detailed cross-examination of PW-1 did not yield any positive materials so as to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act nor to advance the case of the accused that the cheque was stolen by the complainant, on taking advantage of free access to his house, which was not probabilised. Therefore, the learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22461 CRL.RP No. 1340 of 2022 Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed fine of Rs.9,10,000/-, of which, a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.8 of 2021, which on contest, came to be dismissed by a considered judgment dated 24.01.2022. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 9. Sri.R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, would contend that the complainant has failed to place on record necessary materials for having lent a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused. Therefore, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is bad in law and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22461 CRL.RP No. 1340 of 2022 10. Since counsel for respondent remained absent, this Court perused the material on record meticulously, in the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the revision petitioner. 11. On such meticulous consideration of the materials on record, it is noticed that Ex.P1/cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused though it is sought to be portrayed before the Court that signature in Ex.P1 is forged signature. Accused did not get the signature found in Ex.P1 to the Handwriting Expert to establish the plea of forgery. 12. Further, the Bank did not dishonored the cheque on the ground that the signature did not tally but on the ground that the "account was closed". 13. Thus, theory put forward by the accused as rebuttal evidence is that the complainant having had the free access, has stolen the cheque, marked at Ex.P1 and later on, forged the same and presented it before the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22461 CRL.RP No. 1340 of 2022 Court and as such, Ex.P1 did not carry any legally recoverable debt, cannot be countenanced in law. 12. Such a defence in the form of oral testimony of PW-1 would not be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 13. Accordingly, conviction order recorded by the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference, that too, in the limited revisional jurisdiction. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29