IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1253 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

KHALID AHAMMED S/O N.K. GULAM AHAMED AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O 3949, AZAD ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MALLESH GOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT PIRUMANAHALLI VILALGE, HANUMANTHAPURA POST, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN - 573 201.

Digitally …RESPONDENT signed by R MANJUNATHA (BY SRI. HARSHA D, ADVOCATE)

Location:

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C HIGH COURT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.09.2021 OF KARNATAKA PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.264/2019 AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.6338/2016 DATED 11.09.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Pratheep K. C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Harsha D., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.6338/2016 dated 11.09.2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan confirmed in Crl.A.No.264/2019 dated

22.09.2021 is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

came to be filed by the respondent against the revision petitioner herein alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that towards the legally recoverable debt, accused herein issued a cheque bearing No.927938 dated 31.08.2016 in a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Hassan branch, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.

3.2. Legal notice was issued calling upon the payment of amount covered under the cheque. Though the legal notice is duly served, there is no compliance nor reply by the accused. Thereafter, complainant has sought for action against the accused.

4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and one witness by name C.B.Chandrashekar as P.W.2.

6. He placed on record, seven documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7 comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal acknowledgement, copy of the sale deed dated

15.07.2016 and account extract.

7. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and two witnesses by name Hemanth Kumar P. Theertha and Tarani Pradhan as D.W.2 and 3 and placed on record four documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4 comprising of sale deed dated 31.08.2016, mutation register extract, RTC extract and account extract.

8. Learned Trial Magistrate after conclusion of recording of the evidence, heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.16 to 19 as under and convicted the accused and sentenced as under:

“16. The learned Counsel for the accused put much stress on Ex.P.2 and 3 and argued that there are corrections in both documents. Ex.P.2 is an endorsement given by the bank. The complainant has stated that he does not know who has made correction. The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the bank authorities might have made correction if there was mistake. Ex.P.2 reflects the date as 18-10-2016. The same date is also appearing on the seal of TGMC bank in Ex.P.1. In such circumstances, that correction is not of much consequence. As regards notice