[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri J Venkatesh vs Sri H P Ravindra on 12 March, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14940
CRL.RP No. 417 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.417 OF 2023
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI J VENKATESH
S/O SRI JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.02/B, J P ROAD,
(80 FT ROAD) OPP TO SHANKARMUTT,
GIRINAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KUMARA K G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI H P RAVINDRA
S/O SRI PUTTAPPA H N,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5314/2, 17TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM,
Digitally BENGALURU -560 003
signed by R ...RESPONDENT
MANJUNATHA
(BY SMT.POOJA.V, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
OF SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING
KARNATAKA TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-57) IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.391/2019 DATED 16-07-2022 AND JUDGMENT PASSED
BY THE SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN CC NO.15773/2015
DATED 17-12-2018, TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGE
UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14940
CRL.RP No. 417 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Kumara K.G, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Smt.Pooja V, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act in C.C No.15773/2015 dated 17.12.2018
passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM,
Bengaluru, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.391/2019 dated
16.07.2022 on the file of the LVI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
A private complaint came to be lodged by the respondent
/complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the revision petitioner/accused alleging
commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Investment Act contending that, in the month of
NC: 2026:KHC:14940
HC-KAR
October 2014 accused approached the complainant for financial
assistance to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- to meet his urgent
financial commitments, agreeing to repay the same in three
months. Towards the repayment, accused issued two cheques,
one bearing No.032775 dated 20.04.2015 in a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- and the other bearing No.032776 dated
25.04.2015 in a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- respectively, which on
presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement funds
insufficient. There was no compliance to the callings of
statutory notice and thus sought for action.
4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary
formalities recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded
not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
5. As per the principles of law enunciated in the case of
Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India
and others reported in (2014)5 SCC 590, accused was
required to lead the defence evidence, as there was no
application filed under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
NC: 2026:KHC:14940
HC-KAR
6. Nevertheless, complainant got examined himself as P.W.1
and a witness by name Keshav as P.W.2 to prove the
transaction, by placing the 13 documentary evidence on record.
7. As against the same, there is no oral or documentary
evidence placed on record by the accused.
8. The cross-examination of the complainant and PW-2 did
not yield any positive material so as to rebut the presumption
available to the complainant under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
9. It is thereafter the learned Trial Judge convicted the
accused and sentenced as under:
"Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I.Act.
The accused shall pay fine of Rs.15,50,000/-.
In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall
under go simple imprisonment for six months.
Out of the amount so realized, the accused shall pay a
sum of Rs.15,45,000/- to the complainant as
compensation, as provided u/S 357 Cr.P.C. The
remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State."
NC: 2026:KHC:14940
HC-KAR
10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal
before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.391/2019.
11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing
the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by
considered judgment dated 16.07.2022 dismissed the appeal.
12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before
this Court.
13. Sri Kumara K.G., learned counsel for the revision
petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition
invited attention of this Court to the contents of Ex.P-10. He
would further submit that the stamp paper is brought in the
name of A.C.Venkatesh, whereas the name of the accused is
mentioned as J.Venkatesh and therefore, it is a clear case of
concoction by the complainant.
14. He would further contend that when the transaction itself
is not proved, necessary proof was required to be placed by the
complainant to establish that there existed a legally recoverable
debt under the dishonoured cheques and therefore, sought for
allowing the Petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:14940
HC-KAR
15. Per contra, Smt.Pooja, learned counsel for the respondent
would support the impugned judgments.
16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
17. On such perusal of the material on record, dishonored
cheques marked at Exs.P-1 and P-2 did belong to the accused
and signatures found therein are that of the accused.
18. According to the complainant, in respect of repayment of
the hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/-, two cheques came to be
issued. These aspects would be sufficient enough to raise the
presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of
the Negotiable Investment Act.
19. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. In order to
rebut the said presumption, there is no defence evidence at all
placed on record.
20. However, case of the complainant can be properly
rebutted if there is an effective cross-examination, following the
principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
NC: 2026:KHC:14940
HC-KAR
case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat and
another reported in AIR 2019 SC 1876.
21. In that regard this Court bestowed its best attention to
the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2. Except making
suggestions that there was no transaction at all and signature
found in Ex.P-10 is not the signature of the accused, no other
attempt is made to rebut the presumption available to the
complainant.
22. Suggesting the case of the accused and denial thereof
would not be effective evidence to rebut the presumption.
Therefore, the learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court were justified in negating the defence
taken by the accused and convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act which requires no interference, that too, in the
revisional jurisdiction.
23. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good grounds to
interfere with the orders of the Trial Magistrate confirmed by
the First Appellate Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:14940
HC-KAR
24. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9
