IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 419 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

SRI M.H. MANJUNATH S/O LATE HANUMANTHRAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT BOOTHESHWARANAGARA MEKERAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI SATHISHA D.J, ADV.)

AND:

SRI THIMMARAJU D.V S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.10 1ST CROSS SHAMBHAVI NAGARA

1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGERE BANGALORE - 560 058.

Digitally …RESPONDENT signed by NANDINI M S (BY SMT. MAHESHWARI D.M, ADV.)

Location:

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO HIGH COURT OF SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN KARNATAKA CRL.A.NO.544/2019, DATED 14.01.2022, PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.21017/2016 DATED 08.02.2019 PASSED IN 26TH A.C.M.M., AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.21017 of 2016 dated 08.02.2019 by the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.544 of 2019 dated 14.01.2022 by the Court of LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I.Act) in C.C.No.21017 of 2016 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. It is the specific case of the respondent / complainant that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹.2,00,000/- from him on 16.06.2016 and towards repayment of the said amount, Cheque bearing no.520401 dated 16.06.2016 drawn on ICICI Bank, R.T. Nagar branch, Bengaluru in favour of the respondent for a sum of ₹.2,00,000/- was issued. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee bank on 02.08.2016. Thereafter, statutory legal notice was got issued on behalf of the respondent, which was duly served on the petitioner. Since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question in spite of service of legal notice, proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.21017 of 2016. In the said proceedings, the respondent complainant had examined himself as PW.1 and got marked six documents as Ex.P1 to P6. The petitioner had examined himself as DW.1 and his father was examined as DW.2 and one document was got marked in support of the defence as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on the record had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of ₹.2,50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.21017 of 2016 was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.544 of 2019 by the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 14.01.2022. It is under these circumstances, accused /

petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defence raised by the petitioner has not been properly considered by the courts below. He submits that, respondent has admitted that the cheque in question was filled and written by him. Cheque in question was not issued towards legally recoverable debt and therefore the Courts below were not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

4. Per contra, learned co