The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15875 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 313 OF 2022 BETWEEN: RUDRESH K S (SONA) S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.14/135 BASAVESHWARA BLOCK K R NAGAR MYSURU DIST-571602 (BY SRI. JAVEED S., AMICUS CURIAE) AND: REKHA P W/O K T RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SIDDALINGESHWARA ROAD BASAVESHWARA BLOCK K R NAGAR MYSURU DIST-571602 Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., K.R.NAGAR IN C.C.NO.848/2017. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15875 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.279/2018 dated 30.11.2021 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru sitting at Hunsur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the
Legal Reasoning
appeal filed by the revision petitioner herein and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.848/2017 dated 13.11.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge, K.R.Nagar C/c Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The accused and the complainant are known to each other. Owing to acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant in the year 2016 and availed a hand loan of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15875 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2022 Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for his legal necessities. For repayment of the said loan amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.794435 dated 01.08.2016 drawn on Karnataka Bank, K.R.Nagar Branch. The said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment through her banker, however, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement 'Account Closed'. This was informed by the complainant to accused, despite he failed to repay the same. As such, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 06.08.2016, calling upon him to repay the cheque amount. Though the said notice was served to the accused, he neither replied to the legal notice nor repaid the loan amount. As such, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act'). 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, she examined herself as PW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. However, the accused neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents on his behalf before the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15875 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2022 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the Trial Court, the Trial Court passed the judgment convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.68,000/-. In default of payment of fine, directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and out of the fine amount, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.58,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- was directed to be deposited to the State Treasury. 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the accused preferred a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.279/2018. Upon reassessing the oral and documentary evidence and documents on record, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Sri. Javeed S., Amicus Curiae appearing for the revision petitioner. Though the respondent was served she remained unrepresented. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15875 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2022 8. The primary contention of the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the revision petitioner is that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while passing the impugned judgments by convicting the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. He further contended that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court collectively failed to appreciate the defence advanced by the accused that the complainant was a total stranger to the accused and that he never issued cheque-Ex.P1 to the complainant. On the contrary, the accused lost the cheque- Ex.P1 and the same was misused by the complainant for unlawful gains. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Having heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner and on perusing the documents, the sole point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal in Crl.A.No.297/2018 dated 30.11.2021 thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.848/2017 dated 13.11.2018? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15875 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2022 10. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner and also carefully perused the entire materials on record placed before me. 11. As could be gathered from the records, it is specific case of the complainant that the accused availed a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- for his legal necessities and thereafter, he failed to repay the said amount. Accordingly, he issued cheque in question i.e., Ex.P1. The issuance of cheque-Ex.P1 and the signature of the accused affixed on it are not seriously disputed by the accused. It is specific defence of the accused that the cheque in question was lost. The same was found on the road by the complainant and he misused the same for unlawful gain. Further, the accused failed to reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant and also he neither examined any witness nor produced documents to prove the said defence. Albeit, the initial presumption arises under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, is a rebuttal presumption, however, it is a settled position of law that such defence of the accused must be a probable one. In the case on hand the accused has failed to rebut the initial presumption by placing probable defence. In such - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15875 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2022 circumstances, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in holding the accused guilty under Section 138 of NI Act. Against this backdrop, I find no such good grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 12. However, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court with respect to fine amount is hereby modified. The entire fine amount shall be paid to the complainant i.e. Rs.68,000/- instead of Rs.58,000/- as ordered by the Trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. The honorarium to the Amicus Curiae, Sri. Javeed S., is fixed at Rs.15,000/-, which shall be payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee for assisting the Court in this revision petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15875 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2022 The Registry is directed to send the Trial Court records along with the copy of this order to the concerned Court, forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29