IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 136 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

B L PRAKASH S/O LAKSHMANA SHETTY @ LAKKASHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NO.835, NEAR SREE LEKHA TALKIES BASAVANAHALLY EXTENSION CHIKKAMAGALUR CITY-577101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI K S DEVARAJEGOWDA S/O K P SHIVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Digitally NAVEEN PROVISION STORES signed by NEAR TILAK PARK REKHA R Location: VIJAYAPURA EXTENSION High Court CHIKKAMAGALUR CITY-577101 of Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.184/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKAMAGALUR CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22.11.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.926/2012 AND THIS REVISION PETITION BE ALLOWED WITH COST THROUGHOUT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

ORAL ORDER

This criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is by the accused, wherein he has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, which came to be confirmed by the Session Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the accused.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Complainant filed the complaint against the accused alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, contending that accused borrowed a sum of ₹3,25,000/-. Towards repayment of the same, he issued cheque dated 17.01.2012 for ₹3,25,000/-. When complainant presented the cheque for encashment, it was dishonoured for "Funds insufficient". He got issued legal notice dated 01.02.2012 through RPAD and ordinary post. It is received by the accused on 10.02.2012. However, accused has neither paid the amount due nor sent any reply and hence, the complaint.

4. Accused contested the case by pleading not guilty.

5. In order to prove the allegation against the accused, complainant examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 5.

6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied the incriminating evidence led by the complainant.

7. Accused has given evidence as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 and 2.

8. The trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to pay fine of ₹3,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment. It has also directed the accused to pay compensation in a sum of ₹3,57,500/- to the complainant with the default sentence of imprisonment.

9. Accused challenged the same before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.184/2016, which also confirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal.

10. Against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and Sessions Court, accused has filed this petition contending that the judgment and orders under revision are illegal and the Courts below have committed material regularity in convicting him. They have not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in the right perspective. The legal notice is not sent to the address of accused and therefore it is not served on him. The complainant has failed to prove his financial capacity. In the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence of accused is not sustainable and pray to set aside the judgment and order of the Courts below and acquit him.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the complainant supported the impugned judgment and order of trial Court and sought for dismissal of the petition.

12. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

13. It is not in dispute that Ex.P1 cheque is drawn on the account of the accused. According to the complainant, after the dishonour of cheque, legal no