[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

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

NC: 2026:KHC:9850

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.

NC: 2026:KHC:9850

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

NC: 2026:KHC:9850

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

NC: 2026:KHC:9850

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

NC: 2026:KHC:9850

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

NC: 2026:KHC:9850

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

NC: 2026:KHC:9850

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