- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.144 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

SRI YOGENDRAPPA.A H.

S/O.GUDDAPPA H.

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

R/AT NO.GB-1, OTS HAL COLONY

BENGALURU COMPLEX

BENGALURU – 560 093

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI FOR

SRI M.T.NANAIAH, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SRI B.P.SUGANDHA

S/O.B.M.PONNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

R/AT NO.2, KAVERI NILAYA

S.M.ROAD, JALAHALLI CROSS

BENGALURU – 560 057

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

***

THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397

AND 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O.,

F.T.C.NO.VIII, BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A NO.76/2012

& TO SET ASIDE THE JT. DT. 11.01.2012 PASSED BY

THE XIII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.9822/2008

& ETC.

- 2 -

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON

FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This

revision

petition

is

preferred

by

the

petitioner-accused, aggrieved by the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by XIII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in

CC.No.9822/2008 dated 11.01.2012 convicting the

petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

(for short ‘N.I. Act’) and sentencing the petitioner-

accused to pay fine of Rs.65,000/-, out of the said fine

amount Rs.60,000/- to be paid to the complainant as

compensation and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- to be

remitted as fine to the State. In default of the above

payment, the petitioner-accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year, which has been

confirmed by the Fast Track Court No.8, Bengaluru City

in Crl.A.No.76/2012 vide order dated 23.01.2013.

- 3 -

BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO FILING OF THIS

PETITION ARE AS UNDER:

2. It is the case of complainant that petitioner-

accused is his friend and in the month of October, 2007,

the petitioner-accused had approached and requested

for hand loan of Rs.60,000/- in view of there being

certain commitments and requirements, with a promise

to repay the said amount within four months. When the

complainant demanded the petitioner-accused to repay

the aforestated amount after the stipulated period, the

petitioner-accused went on postponing the repayment

of the amount on one pretext or the other. In view of

the persistent demand made by the complainant, finally

the petitioner-accused issued a cheque for Rs.60,000/-

bearing No.859479 dated 23.01.2008 drawn on City

Bank, NA, Bengaluru with an assurance that the said

cheque

would

be

realised

on

presentation.

The

complainant presented the said cheque for encashment

and to his shock and surprise, the said cheque came to

be dishonoured with an endorsement “account closed”

on 25.01.2008.

- 4 -

2.1 The complainant intimated the dishonour of

cheque to the petitioner-accused by issuing a legal

notice dated 02.02.2008 through RPAD as well as UCP.

Notices were served to the petitioner-accused who did

not bother to make payment of dishonoured cheque nor

did he issue any reply to the said legal notice. Hence,

the complainant presented the instant complaint to

recover the dishonoured cheque amount and for

imposition of punishment to accused.

3. On cognizance being taken, the petitioner-

accused was summoned and enlarged on bail. Plea was

recorded, wherein the petitioner-accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, he was tried.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the petitioner-

accused,

the

complainant

adduced

evidence

and

examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P9. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner-accused

was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, wherein the

petitioner-accused denied all the incriminating evidence

ag