Karnataka High Court
Sri. R. Basavaraju vs Sri. G. N. Narayana Swamy on 23 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1132 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI R. BASAVARAJU
S/O. RACHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS TECHNICAL OFFICER "C",
ID NO.198200700 , RSIF DIVISION,
GTRE, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 093.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI G.N. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O. NO.19/7A, DOCTORS LAYOUT,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
III A CROSS, 'B' CHANNASANDRA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
BANGALORE-560 043.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G. UDAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE (CCH-
58) IN CRL.A.NO.25150/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.10.2013 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, IN CASE BEARING C.C.NO.26594/2011.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
The revision petitioner has filed this revision petition
against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.26594/2011 dated
25.10.2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for
short) which is confirmed by the LVII Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-58)
in Crl.A.25150/2013 dated 23.07.2016 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
revision petition are referred to as per their status and
rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition
are that, the complainant and accused are friends and
well known to each other. Accused approached and
requested the complainant for hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/-
for his urgent family necessities. The complainant paid the
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
same on 14.03.2010 by way of cash to the accused.
Accused agreed to repay the same within six months with
interest. On the same day the accused issued six cheques
bearing No.459792 for Rs.25,000/- and No.459794 dated
22.09.2010 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, HAL II
Stage, Bangalore, cheques bearing No.114804 dated
20.09.2010 for Rs.25,000/-, No.114803 dated 22.09.2010
for Rs.20,000/-, No.114806 dated 24.09.2010 for
Rs.20,000/- and No.114802 dated. 25.09.2010 for
Rs.35,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Frazer Town
Branch, Bangalore. As per the instructions of the accused,
he presented all the cheques for encashment through
Andhra Bank, INR Branch, Bangalore, but they were
returned with an endorsement as "Account Closed/Funds
Insufficient". Accordingly, he got issued legal notice to the
accused dated 18.10.2010 through RPAD and UCP. Notice
sent through RPAD and UCP to the residential address was
returned with a postal shara "incomplete address". Notice
sent to the office address was served personally upon the
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
accused, but he failed to make payment of cheque amount
within the stipulated period and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short). Therefore, he filed the complaint.
4. The Trial Court has taken cognizance against the
accused for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments and a case was registered in
C.C.No. 26594/2011. The substance of the plea was
recorded, having understood the same, the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant
examined himself as PW1 and 31 documents were marked
as Exs.P1 to P31. On closure of complainant's side,
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded, the
accused has totally denied the evidence of PW1. The
accused adduced evidence as DW1 and produced 5
documents as Exs.D1 to D5.
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
6. The Trial Court has convicted the accused for the
offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the said
offence and also directed the accused to pay compensation
of Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant towards financial loss
suffered by him and also ordered to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence, the accused preferred
an appeal before the LVII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in
Crl.A.25150/2013. The appeal came to be dismissed on
23.07.2016. Being aggrieved by these two judgments, the
accused-revision petitioner has preferred this revision
petition.
7. Heard Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for
the revision petitioner and Sri G.Udaya Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
submit that the judgments of both the Courts are contrary
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
to law and facts of the case. Both the Courts have failed
to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with
law and facts. As per the provisions of Income Tax Act,
transaction of amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- has to be
made by cheque only. Hence, the alleged transaction is
not believable. The evidence of DW1 as also the
documentary evidence placed by the accused is also not
properly appreciated by both the Courts. On these
grounds, the learned counsel sought for allowing of this
revision petition. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner submitted that if the Court would come
to the conclusion that there are no grounds to interfere
with the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts,
then this Court can modify the sentence passed by the
Trial Court on the ground that the petitioner is a senior
citizen. The offence alleged is not against the State, it is
only a money transaction. Considering the age and
occupation of the accused, the sentence may be modified
only to the extent of fine.
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
9. As against this, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that both the Courts have properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
and facts. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere
with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence and sought for dismissal of this revision petition.
To substantiate his contention, he relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass
Mahant [2022 Live Law (SC) 275].
10. Having heard the arguments of both the counsel
and on perusal of material on record, the following points
would arise for my consideration :
(i) Whether the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is
illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from
legal infirmities?
(ii) Whether the revision petitioner has made
out a ground to modify the sentence passed by
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
the Trial Court which is confirmed by the
Appellate Court?
(iii) What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as under :
Point No. (i) - Negative
Point No. (ii) - Partly affirmative
Point No. (iii) - As per final order
Point No.(i)
12. I have carefully examined the materials placed
before me. The accused has not disputed the issuance of
cheques and also the signature on the cheques. It is the
specific defence of the accused that there is no transaction
between him and the complainant. Accused borrowed a
loan from one Prakash who is the son-in-law of the
complainant for Rs.20,000/- for the first time and
Rs.1,75,000/- for the second time and he discharged the
said amounts by paying cash of Rs.1,26,500/- to Prakash
and he has also paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of
cheque, the same was honoured. It is also submitted that
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
as per the request of Prakash he has issued a cheque
dated 12.01.2007 for Rs.23,500/- to the complainant, and
the same was realised. At the time of receiving loan
amount, the accused had issued six signed cheques in
favour of Prakash. Though after repayment of the said
loan, he assured to return the cheques. However, he did
not return the same. But misusing those cheques, the
complainant has filed false complaint against this accused
under Section 138 of the Act.
13. From a perusal of the materials placed before
this Court it is clear that Exs.P1 to P6 are the cheques
which were presented for encashment within the
prescribed time, the same was returned with a shara
"insufficient funds". Thereafter within the prescribed time,
the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused, same
was duly served on the accused. Despite receiving legal
notice, the accused has not sent any reply or paid the
cheque amount. The Trial Court has properly appreciated
the evidence on record in paras 9 to 15 of the judgment
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
passed in C.C.No.26594/2011. The Appellate Court has
also properly appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with law and facts. On re-appreciation of the
entire evidence on record, I do not find any
error/illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgment passed
by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate
Court.
14. With regard to the contention of cash transaction
under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act is concerned,
relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION
INVESTIGATION vs KUM. A.B. SHANTHI [(2002) 6
SCC 259] this Court has observed in Criminal Revision
Petition 2011/2013 decided on 18.11.2022 that the
violation of provision of Section 269SS is not a ground to
reject the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act.
The concerned authority can initiate proceedings against
the concerned for violation of the said provision.
Therefore, this argument advanced on behalf of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
revision petitioner cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I
answer point No.(i) in the negative.
Point No. (ii)
15. With regard to modification of the sentence is
concerned, the Trial Court has passed a sentence to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the
offence under Section 138 of the Act and also directed the
accused to pay a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- to the
complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. Admittedly,
the accused and the complainant are friends and hence,
the complainant had lent a hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/- for
the urgent family necessities. The accused is a senior
citizen. Considering the nature of offence and transaction,
and the relationship between the accused and the
complainant, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper
to modify the sentence passed by the Trial Court only to
the extent of compensation awarded under Section 357
(3) of Cr.P.C.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
Point No. (iii)
16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(a) Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.
(b) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.26594/2011 dated
25.10.2013 which is confirmed by the LVII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-
58) in Crl.A.25150/2013 dated 23.07.2016 are confirmed.
The sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as
under :
(i) The sentence passed by the Trial Court to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months is set aside and
modified confirming the sentence only to the extent
of payment of fine amount.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27816
HC-KAR
(ii) The compensation awarded by the Trial Court
which is confirmed by the Appellate Court under
Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C, is confirmed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
CKL
