IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1431 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

M/S. BHOJA GARDEN RESTAURANT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SRINIVAGILU, VIVEKANAGAR POST EJIPURA, BANGALORE – 560 047.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI VAIDYA RAVI LAXMINARAYANA, AND SRI M R RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

Digitally signed by AND:

LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJAS HRI NAGARAJA Location: HIGH COURT OF AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS KARNATAKA S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA R/AT No.100, ‘BHANU HOUSE’

4^TH CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT T.C. PALYA MAIN ROAD K.R. PURAM BANGALORE – 560 036.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN M N, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE XX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.No.3604/2013 DATED 17.11.2014 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. (CCH-64), BANGALORE IN CRL.A.No.1384/2014 DATED 26.11.2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS IN THE SAID C.C.No.3604/2013 ON THE FILE OF XX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.11.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.1384/2014 by the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 17.11.2014 passed in C.C.No.3604/2013 by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act” for brevity) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,55,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months has been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the respondent –complainant before the trial Court is that during the month of June-2012, the petitioner –accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from the respondent –complainant and promised to repay the same within 04 months. When the respondent – complainant demanded for repayment of loan amount then the petitioner –accused has issued cheque bearing No.336882 dated 21.11.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) in favour of the respondent – complainant and it was drawn on the Axis Bank Ltd., Koramangal Industrial Layout, Bengaluru. The respondent -complainant presented the said cheque for encashment and it came to be dishonoured for a reason “funds insufficient” under bank memo 22.11.2012. The respondent -complainant got issued statutory notice to the accused. Inspite of service of said notice, the petitioner – accused failed to repay the cheque amount within 15 days. Therefore, the respondent –complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

4. The respondent –complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P8. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after hearing arguments on both side and appreciating evidence on record has convicted the petitioner –accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,55,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the petitioner -accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.1384/2014. The said appeal came to be dismissed on merits by judgment dated 26.11.2015 affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner -accused would contend that the respondent –complainant was running bar and restau