- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13588 CRL.RP No. 297 of 2021 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.297 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. D.V.SANTHOSH, S/O. D.S. VASANTH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT MIG-12, 2ND MAIN ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANUKUMAR B.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.N. MADHUSUDHAN) AND: SRI. NARENDRA. V. B., S/O. BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, HEMAVATHI NAGARA, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13588 CRL.RP No. 297 of 2021 THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.01.2021 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.323/2019 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN C.C.NO.6078/2017 DATED 10.10.2019 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND 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.Manukumar B.T., for Madhusudhan M.N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Raghavendra V., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.6078 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.5,30,000/-, as compensation to the complainant and sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.323 of 2019, is the revision petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13588 CRL.RP No. 297 of 2021 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the complainant against the accused alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act by contending that accused is acquainted with the complainant who borrowed a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- as hand loan on 05.08.2016 and towards the repayment of the same, he issued the cheque bearing No.000005 dated 26.10.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement "account closed". There was no compliance to the statutory notice and therefore, action was sought. 3.2 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore, trial was held. 3.3 In order to prove the case of the complaint he got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record 5 documents which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, comprising - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13588 CRL.RP No. 297 of 2021 of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, office copy of the legal notice, postal covers, postal receipts and postal acknowledgment. 3.4 As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW1 and one witness by name Sandesha D.R. as DW2. 3.5 Learned Trial Magistrate after considering the material evidence placed on record by the parties, convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 3.6 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.323 of 2019. 3.7 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal of the accused by considered judgment dated 13.01.2021. 3.8 Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13588 CRL.RP No. 297 of 2021 4. Sri.M.N.Madhusudhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that in the case on hand, the accused has questioned the lending capacity of the complaint for which there is no material evidence placed on record. As such, the order of conviction recorded by both the courts needs to be set aside by allowing the revision question. 5. Per contra, Sri.Raghavendra V., learned counsel for the respondent / complainant would support the impugned judgments. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, Ex.P1 - cheque is belonging to accused and the signature found therein is that of the accused. 7. According to complainant, he has lent the money as a hand loan to the accused in a sum of Rs.5,25,000/-, which was assured to be repaid by the accused and towards the repayment of the same, cheque came to be issued. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13588 CRL.RP No. 297 of 2021 8. Accused has challenged the lending capacity of the complainant. Such a contention cannot be countenanced in law in view of the authoritative principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJESH JAIN VERSUS AJAY SINGH reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148. 9. Accordingly, in the absence of the cogent and convincing rebuttable evidence except the oral testimony of DW1 and DW2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the presumption raised by the Trial Magistrate available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is just and proper resulting in the conviction of the accused. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the same while dismissing the appeal of the accused. 11. Thus, this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction does not find any good grounds to admit the matter for further consideration. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13588 CRL.RP No. 297 of 2021 12. Hence, the following: O R D E R Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21