Karnataka High Court
Sri Karthik Suvarna P vs Sri Vijaya Kumar P N on 17 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9850
CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 90 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI KARTHIK SUVARNA. P.
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GROUND FLOOR,
UDYOGPURA,
RANGAPPA ESTATE,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560 082.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. V. SHIVANANDA REDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI VIJAYA KUMAR. P. N.
Digitally signed
S/O SRI LATE NARAYAN RAO,
by
SHARADAVANI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
B RESIDING AT NO.209, GROUND FLOOR,
Location: High
Court of NAIDUS LAYOUT, AREHALLI ,
Karnataka
NEAR ABBAIAH NAIDU STUDIO,
BENGALURU-560 061.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SATHISHA D J., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
02.05.2018 OF CONVICTING PASSED IN CC. NO.21245/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AND ORDER DATED 12.02.2020 IN
TH
CRL.A.NO.1048/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 68 CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-69), BENGALURU,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9850
CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138
OF N.I. ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
Accused is before this Court in this Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.21245/2017 dated 02.05.2018 by the Court of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1048/2018 by Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Court of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
2. Heard the learned counsel for these parties.
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'NI -3- NC: 2026:KHC:9850 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021 HC-KAR Act') before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Bangalore in C.C.No.21245/2017. In the said case, the Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.2018, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in C.C.No.21245/2017 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.1048/2018 by Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2020 by the Court of LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. It is under these circumstances the petitioner is before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though an application under Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on the date of appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, proper opportunity to cross examine PW1 was not granted. He submits that the trial Court in a hurried manner has proceeded against the petitioner who has got a good case on merits.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9850 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021 HC-KAR
5. Percontra, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and submits that in spite of sufficient opportunity being granted, petitioner had failed to participate in the trial before the trial court and therefore, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the revision petition.
6. Respondent herein had filed PCR No.9676/2017 before the jurisdictional Court, against the petitioner herein for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
7. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash towards his domestic commitments and after repeated demands made by the complainant, towards repayment of the amount borrowed, petitioner had issued the cheque in question bearing number 920543 dated 16.06.2017 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, the Art of Living branch, Bengaluru, for -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9850 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021 HC-KAR a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent. The said cheque on presentation for realization was dishonoured and thereafter a statutory legal notice was got issued on behalf of the respondent. Since the petitioner had not repaid the amount borrowed, the respondent initiated proceedings against him for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act, in C.C.No.21245/2017.
8. Petitioner had appeared before the trial Court on 29.12.2017 and had filed an application under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the trial Court. On the same day, plea of the petitioner was recorded. The sworn statement of the complainant was directed to be treated as the chief examination affidavit of the complainant. Petitioner had filed an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act on the very same day and therefore, the trial Court had posted the matter on 05.02.2018 for cross-examination of the complainant/PW1. On 05.02.2018, since there was no representation on behalf of the accused, matter was adjourned to 13.03.2018 and on the said date, a request was -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9850 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021 HC-KAR made on behalf of the accused to grant time. The same was rejected by the trial Court and the matter was adjourned to 27.03.2018 for the purpose of recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On 27.03.2018, matter was adjourned to 12.04.2018 and on 12.04.2018 recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed and the matter was adjourned to 25.04.2018 for hearing arguments. On 25.04.2018, matter was adjourned to 27.04.2018 and on the said, date arguments on behalf of the complainant was heard and judgment was pronounced on 02.05.2018, convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.5,25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
9. From the aforesaid dates and events, it is apparent that petitioner was not granted sufficient opportunity before the trial Court to put forward his defense. On the first date of appearance of the petitioner itself, the trial Court, after recording his plea, also had treated the sworn -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9850 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021 HC-KAR statement of the complainant as his chief examination affidavit and thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, considering his application filed under Section 145(2) of the NI Act had adjourned the matter to 05.02.2018 for the purpose of cross-examination of PW1. On 05.02.2018 case was adjourned to 13.03.2018 and on the said date though a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to grant time, the trial Court had rejected the same and had posted the matter for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. From the aforesaid it is apparent that trial Court has proceeded against the petitioner in an hurried manner notwithstanding the fact that he had made a specific request at the inception itself that he intends to cross examine PW.1 and such a request was made by the petitioner by filing an application as provided under Section 145(2) of the NI Act.
10. It is trite that an accused is required to be granted fair opportunity to put forward his defense. In a proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, the burden to rebut the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9850 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021 HC-KAR presumption that is available against the accused as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the NI Act, is on the accused by putting forward a probable defence and in the event he fails to rebut the said presumption, he is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Under the circumstances, the trial Court ought to have granted reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his defense.
11. The order sheet of the trial Court would reflect that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the petitioner by trial Court, which has proceeded with the matter in a hurried manner. The Appellate Court also has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has erred in confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are required to be set aside and the matter needs to be remitted to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh, after granting reasonable opportunity to -9- NC: 2026:KHC:9850 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021 HC-KAR the petitioner to cross examine PW.1 and also to lead defense evidence, in the event, a request is made by him.
12. The respondent-complainant for no mistake of him is put to inconvenience and therefore petitioner is required to compensate him by paying appropriate cost. Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
i) Criminal Revision petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the case afresh after granting opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine PW.1 and also to lead defense evidence.
iii) Since the case is of the year 2017, the trial Court shall make endeavours to dispose of the case on merits as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of 3
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9850 CRL.RP No. 90 of 2021 HC-KAR months from the date of appearance of the parties before the trial Court. Since the parties are represented by their learned counsels, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 03.03.2026, without awaiting for service of fresh notice from the court.
iv) The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit which shall be subject to the outcome of C.C.No.21245/2017.
v) Petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent before the trial Court on the next date of hearing.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24