- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1402 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. K. PRAKASH S/O. LATE K. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.37, 3RD BLOCK BMTC QUARERS SHANTHINGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 ALSO AT BMTC D-13 K PRALASJ MECHANIC T.NO.3560 KAMAKYA KATHRIGUPPE POST BENGALURU - 560 095 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY D.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. VANI W/O. SRI. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.62, KANTHAMMA CHIKKANARAYANAMMA NILAYA Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 7TH CROSS, BSK II STAGE SAPALAMMA TEMPLE STREET KADHEERENAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 070 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-53) IN CRL.A.NO.1455/2018, AT ANNEXURE-A. 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. D.L. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Prabhakara, learned counsel for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.26589/2015, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1455/2018, 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 A private complainant under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure came to the file alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that husband of the complainant and accused are known to each other for about eleven years and in that regard, she approached the complainant for financial help as she was in the business of soaps and detergents and based on the said request, complainant lent a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in the month of June 2015 as hand loan. 3.2 Towards the repayment of the same, accused issued a Cheque bearing No.999482 dated 12.07.2015 in a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 sum of Rs.4,50,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 18.08.2015. 3.3 Legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to repay the amount covered under the cheques which was duly served and there was no reply nor compliance which necessitated the complainant to seek for necessary action against the accused. 3.4 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held. 3.5 Smt. Vani, being the complainant got examined herself as PW1 and placed on record seven documents and few more documents were also confronted to DW1 which were marked as Exhibit P8 to Exhibit P12. 3.6 As against the material evidence on record on behalf of the complainant, accused got examined himself - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 as DW1 and placed on record Exhibit 15 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits D1 to D15. 3.7 Learned Trial Magistrate after conclusion of the recording evidence, on cumulative analysis of the material evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed fine of Rs.5,00,000/- of which sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the defying expense of the state. 3.8 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.1455/2018. 3.9 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 01.09.2022, inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.35 to 38 as under : - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 "35. D.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that he is working with the husband of the complainant in the same depot and also admitted that he and husband of complainant are joined the service in the year 1997 and he knows the husband of the complainant since 1997. D.W.1 in his cross-examination has also admitted that he has attended the marriage of the complainant and the birthday function of her son and he know her husband from 19 years. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused is well known to her family and as such, she has given hand loan amount as alleged in the complaint to the accused. D.W.1 in his chief-examination has stated that he has not singed all the cheques that were allegedly lost. Whereas D.W.1 in his chief-examination has stated that the cheque leaves which were lost by him were all singed by him without mentioning the name, amount and date. What was the necessity to him to carry the blank signed cheques along with him is not properly explained in his examination-in-chief. D.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he had singed two to three cheques in order to purchase electronic items for his house purpose. But the said fact is not stated either in the chief-examination or in Ex.P.2. Further as it is stated earlier, the accused has not produce the copy of the complaint stating that he has lost two to three singed cheques and he was carrying those cheques for the purpose of electronic items to his house. If really D.W.1 has carried the cheques for purchase of electronic items to his house, he would have specifically stated the names of the shop in the cheque and he would have mentioned the amount in the cheque. The accused in his chief-examination or in complaint has not specifically stated the fact that he was going to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 purchase the electronic items for his house on 07.09.2015 or earlier to it. Further P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has not mentioned the shop name from where he was intending to purchase the electronic items to his house. Under these facts and circumstances, the contention of the accused that he was carrying two to three singed cheques for purchase the electronic items cannot be acceptable one. The accused has not given any proper and valid reasons for allegedly carrying several blank signed cheques while he was travelling in the bus. 36. The oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the accused as discussed above are not helpful to the accused to prove how Ex P.1 cheque was came in possession of the complainant. Further the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the accused are not helpful to the accused to prove his defence taken in the examination-in-chief regarding Ex.P.1 cheque. On the other hand, the complainant by adducing oral and documentary evidence has proved the fact that she has lending hand loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused and the accused has issued Ex.P.1 cheque for discharge of said loan amount and Ex.P.1 cheque was dishonoured by the banker of the accused with shara "insufficient funds" in the bank account of the accused. Further the complainant has also proved before the trial Court that she has issued demand notice to the accused by intimating about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the cheque amount. The accused has not given any reply to the said legal notice. Further presumption u/Sec.118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act that Ex.P.1 cheque was drawn - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 for consideration and presumption u/Sec. 139 of N.I.Act that the holder of the. cheque received cheque for discharge in whole or any part in debt or liability is in favour of complainant. Further as it is discussed earlier, the accused has failed to adduce any probable defence evidence to rebut the presumption u/Sec.118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act. As such, I am of the opinion that the complainant has proved all the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The trial Court has properly and judiciously appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has failed to prove his probable defence evidence to rebut the presumption u/Sec. 118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act. The trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s.138 of N.I. Act. As such, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the trial Court that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I. Act. 37. For the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that any of the grounds urged by the appellant in the grounds of appeal are not helpful to the accused to prove his probable defence taken in the examination-in-chief about Ex.P.1 cheque. As such, I am of the opinion that the interference of this court is not required with the impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I. Act. I do not find any valid grounds to interfere with the said finding of the trial court. I do not find any merits in the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum to hold that trial court is erred in convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act. For the discussions made - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 above, I am of the opinion that the rulings relied upon by the Learned counsel for the appellant before the trial court are also not helpful to the accused to prove his innocence. Hence, the judgment of conviction passed against the accused by trial court for the offence punishable u/s.138 of N.I. Act is proper and judicious and it requires to be confirmed. 38. The trial court has sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. As per Sec. 138 of N.I.Act, the learned Magistrate has got discretion to sentence the accused to undergo imprisonment for the period up to two years or to impose fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. The learned Magistrate by exercising his discretion has sentenced the accused only with fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. By considering the length of trial, date of issuance of cheque and interest on the cheque amount etc., the discretion exercise by the learned Magistrate is also seems to be proper and judicious. As such, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the sentence passed by the trial court. As such, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the trial court is deserves to confirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer Points No.1 to 3 in Negative." 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Murthy D.L. reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record that the complainant had no lending capacity and it is her husband who was doing the illegal money lending business being a government employee which has been taken note of and he has been dismissed from the service. Therefore, there was no privity of the transaction between the complainant and accused and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noted that Exhibit P1-cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 9. The oral evidence of PW1 would make it clear that She has lent the hand loan to the accused in a sum of Rs.4,50,000 and for which the check in question came to be issued. 10. Thus, initial burden has been discharged by the complainant to raise the presumption and available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 11. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the said presumption, accused got examined himself and placed on record fifteen documents. During the course of cross-examination of DW1, Exhibit P8 to Exhibit P12 were marked. Wherein, the transaction between the complainant and accused stands established. 12. Further, the contention taken by the accused that husband of the complainant is the money lender and it is he who has transacted with the accused is not probabilized by placing necessary material evidence on - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19939 CRL.RP No. 1402 of 2022 record. The same has been taken note of by the Trial Magistrate and which has been further upheld by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court as referred to supra. 13. Taking note of the limited judicial jurisdiction this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court holding that accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. Accordingly, following order: ORDER Criminal revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17