Karnataka High Court
Shashidhar M vs Nataraj on 20 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21515
CRL.RP No. 437 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 437 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHASHIDHAR M
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O MARALASIDDAPPA,
K M SONNAPPA LAYOUT MAIN ROAD,
KAREGUDDADAHALLI,
BENGALURU 560090
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE MARKONDA MUDHALIYAR,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N R/AT NO 3, 3RD MAIN, MATHIKERE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560054.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.L. KUMAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A. NO.372/2018 AND ALSO BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2018
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
AND XXVI ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.27611/2016 AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21515
CRL.RP No. 437 of 2021
HC-KAR
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the accused,
challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence
order dated 07th February 2018 passed in CC No.27611 of 2016
by the Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVI ACMM at
Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court")
which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 17th March,
2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2018 by the LXI
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short
hereinafter referred to as the "appellate Court").
2. Heard the arguments on both sides.
3. Sri Prabhugoud B Thumbigi, learned Counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts below are
arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind and are
contrary to Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act
NC: 2025:KHC:21515
HC-KAR
and hence are liable to be set aside. He would submit that the
alleged date of hand loan by way of cash and the alleged date
of repayment clearly shows that the complainant is not free
from malafide and the same is made for illegal gain to the
accused and to cause illegal loss to the revision petitioner.
He would further submit that the complainant does not show
that the respondent has the capacity to pay the alleged amount
by way of cash to the revision petitioner, but the courts below
failed to consider this aspect of the matter and have arrived at
a wrong conclusion. Further, he would submit that the blank
cheques were issued for security for transaction between one
Sajesh and the respondent. The respondent, subsequently, had
difference with the said Sajesh and misused the blank security
cheques of revision petitioner, and had falsely claimed the
cheque amount and, in fact, there is no legally recoverable debt
existing between the accused-revision petitioner and the
complainant-respondent. However both the Courts below have
failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper
perspective, and there is no corroboration of the oral evidence
with documentary evidence to prove the issuance of cheques to
the respondent. Hence, he would submit that both the Courts
NC: 2025:KHC:21515
HC-KAR
below have erred in passing the judgment and orders, and on
all these grounds, sought to allow the appeal. To buttress his
argument, he has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of ANSS RAJASHEKAR v. AUGUSTUS JEBA
ANANTH reported in AIR 2019 SC 94 and K. SUBRAMANI v. K.
DAMODARA NAIDU reported in (2015)1 SCC 99.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner, I have examined the materials placed
before me. The complainant has produced two cheques vide
No.510722 dated 02nd November, 2016 for sum of
Rs.5,50,000/- and No.510736 dated 04th November 2016 for
sum of Rs.4,00,000/- totally amounting to Rs.9,50,000/- and
when the cheques were presented to the Bank for encashment,
both were returned with endorsement "Account closed". Within
the prescribed time, the complainant has issued demand notice
to the accused to pay the cheque amount of Rs.9,50,000/-.
The same was duly served to the accused. Accused has not
only not sent any reply, but also failed to pay the cheque
amount within the statutory period. Later, the complainant has
lodged complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal
NC: 2025:KHC:21515
HC-KAR
Procedure. To substantiate this, PW1 has adduced his evidence
and produced necessary documents.
5. To rebut the statutory presumption under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused has not
adduced any evidence. Only during the course of cross-
examination of PW1, it was suggested to PW1 that the
complainant has no financial capacity to lend loan of
Rs.9,50,000/-. In this regard, the accused has not made any
reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant, despite due
service of notice. Hence, the defence set up by the accused
cannot be accepted. It is settled law that the accused has to
rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, to discharge the burden which is cast upon
him. Even on re-appreciation, re-examination and re-
consideration of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any
error legal infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court, which is affirmed by the Court. In the
result, I proceed to pause the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is dismissed;
NC: 2025:KHC:21515
HC-KAR
(ii) Judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 7th February 2018 passed in CC
No.27611 of 2016 by Judge, Court of Small
Causes & XXVI ACMM at Bengaluru which is
confirmed by judgment and order dated 17th
March 2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.372
of 2018 by the LXI Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are confirmed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
