IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 594 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI M.N. MANJAPPA, S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, SANTHEBACHANAHALLI HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI GOPALA C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI C.K. YOGENDRA, S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A CHAMIKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK, Digitally signed MANDYA DISTRICT.

by GURURAJ D …RESPONDENT Location: H igh THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W Court of

442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER Karnataka DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5051/2023 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA), AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 18.10.2023 PASSED IN CC.NO.160/2016 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., K.R.PETE.

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment and order dated 21.02.2025 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna) confirming judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2023 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, KR Pete, in CC no.160/2016, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri C Gopala, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, respondent herein filed C.C.no.160/2016 against petitioner herein (accused) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short), alleging that during first week of May, 2011, accused borrowed Rs.2 Lakhs as loan from complainant for household expenses assuring to repay same within two months. But, after lapse of said period, when complainant demanded return of amount, accused had issued cheque no.695258 dated 05.07.2011 drawn on Vishweshwaraiah Grameena Bank, KR Pete Branch, which when presented for collection through complainant's banker - Vijaya Bank, Hosaholalu Branch, on 08.07.2011, it was returned dishonoured due to 'funds insufficient'. Intimation to said effect sent by his banker was received on same day. It was stated, accused failed to pay cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice dated 14.07.2011 got issued by complainant nor replied to notice, thereby committing offence as alleged and seeking for taking action against accused for same.

3. On service of summons, accused appeared and pleaded not guilty, which necessitated trial. Trial Court framed following points for consideration and recorded evidence.

"i. Does the complainant proves that the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No.695258 dated 05.07.2011 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Vishveshwaraya Grameena Bank, Krishnarajpet Branch towards his personal household expenses and discharge of debts and the same was dishonoured for reason 'Funds insufficient' and that in spite of issuance of notice to the accused, he has failed to repay the amount due in cheque within the stipulated period?

ii. What order or sentence?"

4. Complainant deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P4, while accused deposed as DW.1 and did not produce any documents.

5. On consideration, trial Court answered point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 by convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.2,05,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved thereby, accused preferred appeal in CRL.A.no.5051/2023.

6. Appellate Court framed following points for consideration:

"i. Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?

ii. What order?"

7. On consideration, Appellate Court answered point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 by dismissing appeal, confirming judgment and order passed by trial Court.

Aggr