SRI N M JEEVAN KUMAR vs SRI MAHESH N S

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 258 OF 2024

BETWEEN:



SRI. N.M. JEEVAN KUMAR
S/O SRI. N.V. MADARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
SRI. NANJUNDESHWARA PAINTS,
20TH CROSS, R.P. ROAD
NANJANGUD - 571 301.
…PETITIONER






(BY SRI. VASU K, ADVOCATE)

AND:


SRI. MAHESH N.S,
S/O SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/A NO.39/5, 4TH MAIN,
M.M. ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA
NEW EXTENSIONS, MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 026.
…RESPONDENT



(BY SMT. S. THEJASHWINI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
04.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.795/2020 AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED
04.03.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVIII A.C.M.M AT
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20547/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
138 OF N.I ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER

This is the Revision Petition filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.) by the revision petitioner/accused
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04.03.2020 passed in C.C.No.20547/2017
on the file of the XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru (in short the 'trial Court') which is confirmed in
the judgment dated 04.12.2023 in Criminal Appeal
No.795/2020 on the file of LVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-59) (in short the
'appellate Court').
2. Parties would be referred with their banks, as
they were before the trial court for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



3. The complainant has filed the complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court praying for
taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'N.I.Act)
against the accused.
4. The case of the complainant in nut shell is that
the complainant and accused are childhood friends and
towards the difficulties and financial problems of the
accused, as per his request, the complainant has lent
Rs.
3,60,000/- to the accused on 10.05.2016. At that
time, accused assured to repay the same within six
months. Six months afterwards, when the complainant
approached the accused to repay the amount, the accused
has issued the subject cheque bearing No.064186 drawn
on Corporation Bank, Nanjangud Branch for a sum of
Rs.
3,60,000/-. When the complainant presented the same
for encashment, it was returned dishonoured with an
endorsement dated 09.02.2017'funds insufficient'. After
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



such an endorsement, the complainant issued legal notice
dated 06.03.2017 to the accused calling upon him to pay
the cheque amount; the accused has received the notice
on 15.03.2017 but not replied to it. Hence, the complaint
is filed on 28.04.2017.
5. After recording sworn statement, the trial Court
registered the case by taking cognizance of the offence
under Section 138 of N.I. Act and issued summons to the
accused. Afterwards accused appeared through his
counsel. When the accusation levelled against the accused
is read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty of
the offence and claimed trial. Learned counsel for accused
has cross-examined the complainant and then statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Afterwards
accused has let in his defence evidence.
6. After hearing arguments, the trial Court
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



Rs. Rs.
4,60,000/- out of which 4,50,000/- shall be payable
to the complainant as compensation and remaining
Rs.
10,000/- is defrayed towards State expenses.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused
has filed the appeal before the appellate Court. After
hearing arguments of both sides, the appeal was
dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the revision
petitioner/accused is before this Court.
9. Heard arguments of both sides.
10. The learned counsel for revision petitioner Sri
Vasu K. would submit that the complainant and the
accused were childhood friends. However, afterwards,
complainant became highly educated and started working
in Bengaluru and there was no connection between
complainant and the accused. The mother of complainant
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



was doing chit business, the accused was one of the
subscribers of the said chit business and in that business,
there were differences of opinion between the mother of
complainant and the accused. At the time of
commencement of said chit business, mother of the
accused has taken two blank signed cheques from the
accused towards security. One of those cheques was
misused by the complainant and filed this false complaint.
The financial capacity of the complainant was disputed by
in the cross-examination of the complainant, the accused
has elicited some important points on his financial capacity
thereby he has raised the probable defence. However, the
trial Court and the appellate Court have not appreciated
the probable defence raised by the accused; that the
burden shifts upon the complainant to prove his contention
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment of both
Courts is erroneous and requires interference.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



11. The learned counsel for respondent
Smt.Tejaswini would submit that the accused has not
raised any probable defence by cross-examining the
complainant or from his defence evidence. Even though
the legal notice was served upon the accused, he
remained silent and not given any reply to legal notice.
Only after commencement of the cross-examination of the
complainant, the accused has issued legal notice to the
mother of complainant contending that there was chit
transaction between him and the mother of complainant
only to raise probable defence. However, the said notice
was suitably replied by the mother of complainant.
Considering these aspects, the trial Court and the
appellate Court have rightly held that accused issued the
cheque for consideration and failed to rebut the
presumption in favour of the complainant and hence,
prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



12. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the revision papers, the trial Court and appellate Court
records, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the revision petitioner establishes
perversity or grossly erroneousness in the judgment
of the trial court and appellate court or the judgment
of the trial court and appellate court is glaringly
unreasonable or wholly unreliable or untenable and
the judgment of the trial court and appellate court
considered immaterial or irrelevant material or no
material or non-consideration of any relevant
material or judicial discretion has been exercised
arbitrarily or capriciously ?"

13. The finding of this Court on above point is in
‘ Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
14. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very
limited. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kuntegowda v/s Thurubaiah in Criminal Appeal
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



No.3654/2026, (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.2247 of 2024 dated 04.08.2026
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485 . In the aforesaid
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.7.1.
to 7.3 has discussed the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court, which reads as follows:
"7.1 This Court, in the State of Maharashtra vs.
Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659
observed that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an in-depth roving re-
examination of the oral evidence and medical evidence and
come to a conclusion contrary to the consistent one reached
by two courts below. In the facts of the present case, in the
impugned judgment, the High Court gravely erred in upsetting
the concurrent findings of conviction of the trial court and the
Appellate Court by substituting its own conclusions and
reasoning on the merits of the case and thereby erred in
setting aside the well-reasoned and correct judgement and
orders of the trial and appellate courts.
7.2 Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order
dated 06.10.2023, it is apparent that the High Court went into
great detail into each of the testimonies, documents and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



merits of the case which could have been avoided especially
when the subject matter had come under its revisional
jurisdiction. Instead, acting as an appellate Court, the High
Court deemed it fit to go into the merits of the case,
something which is generally impermissible unless a glaring
contradiction is apparent on the face of record. In State of
Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2
SCC 452, while considering the scope of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the
following:
"5.... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court
can call for and examine the record of any
proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to
the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction
is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But
the said revisional power cannot be equated with
the power of an appellate court nor can it be
treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction.
Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate
for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and
come to its own conclusion on the same when the
evidence has already been appreciated by the
Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal,
unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice
of the High Court which would otherwise
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On
scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no
hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High
Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with
the conviction of the Respondent by reappreciating
the oral evidence...."
7.3. The contours for exercise of revisional
jurisdiction has been well settled by the judicial dicta
of this Court wherein time and again it has been
observed that the High Court shall not interfere with
the orders of the lower court unless:
i. The order or finding of the lower court is
perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly
unreasonable or wholly unreliable or
untenable in law.
ii. The lower court has passed the impugned
order after considering an immaterial or
irrelevant material or no material at all.
iii. There is a non-consideration of any relevant
material or the judicial discretion has been
exercised arbitrarily or capriciously."

15. Thus, only if the judgment of the trial Court
confirmed by appellate Court is perverse or grossly
erroneous, or grossly unreasonable, or wholly unreliable,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



or wholly untenable, or the trial Court considered an
immaterial or irrelevant, material or no material or not at
all relevant material or judicial discretion has been
exercised arbitrarily and capriciously, the revisional Court
can interfere with such judgment.
16. The alleged offence in this case is the offence
under Section 138 of N.I. Act; to attract the offence under
Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant has to satisfy the
following ingredients:
(i) that there is legally enforceable debt;
(ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank
for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other
liability;
(iii) that the cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn
or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(iv) that cheque so issued has been returned due to
insufficiency of funds;
(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque
makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money
by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within
15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the
said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course
of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.


17. If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied,
then there shall be a presumption under Section 139 of
the N.I. Act. Always, the cheque is a bill of exchange and
thus there shall be a presumption under Section 118 of
the N.I. Act., there is also statutory presumption under
Section 139 of N.I. Act that there exists legally
recoverable debt and the cheque is issued for recovery of
legally recoverable debt either wholly or in part. But the
presumptions available under Section 118 and 139 of the
N.I. Act are rebuttable presumptions.
18. With this background, the facts of the present
case are to be analysed and to verify whether the trial
Court and the Appellate Court have not examined the
records produced by either party or erroneously
appreciated the evidence.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



19. The case of complainant is that accused has
Rs.
taken hand loan of 3,60,000/- on 10.05.2016 agreeing
to repay the same after 6 months for his financial needs.
In that regard, the accused has issued the subject cheque
dated 16.12.2016. It was presented for encashment but
returned with an endorsement dated 09.02.2017 'funds
insufficient'. Then the complainant got issued legal notice
dated 06.03.2017 which was served upon the accused and
postal acknowledgment was received by the complainant
on 15.03.2017 and filed the complaint dated 28.04.2017.
The accused has not disputed that the cheque bears his
signature and it is from his bank account.
20. When once the complainant establishes the
aforesaid facts, the ingredients of clause Nos.(iii) to (vi)
stated above are fulfilled. When once the complainant
fulfills clause Nos.(iii) to (vi), as per Sections 118 and 139
of NI Act, the Court shall presume that the cheque was
issued for consideration, the cheque was issued on the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



date mentioned in it; there exists legally recoverable debt
and the cheque is issued towards discharge of said debt
either wholly or in part. However, these are rebuttable
presumptions.
21. The accused can rebut the presumptions either
by giving reply to the notice, or by cross-examining the
complainant or by leading his evidence or by all the above
three modes.
22. In the instant case, the accused has not given
reply to the legal notice of the complainant but he cross-
examined the complainant and let in his defence evidence.
The defence taken by the accused is that there was chit
transaction between the accused and the mother of the
complainant and in that respect, the accused has issued
two signed blank cheques to mother of the complainant as
security.
23. To substantiate the above contention, the
accused has produced Ex.D1, the legal notice dated
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



12.12.2018 issued on behalf of the accused to the mother
of the complainant. After service of said legal notice, the
mother of the complainant has given reply as per Ex.P7
dated 03.01.2019 that there was no cheque transaction
that mother of the complainant never had the chit
transaction and there was no such transaction with the
accused.
24. It is to be noted here that the legal notice
issued by the complainant was served upon the accused
on 15.03.2017, the complaint is filed on 28.04.2017; the
criminal case was registered on 10.08.2017. Afterwards
the accused appeared through his counsel on 18.06.2018.
Only almost six months after his appearance in this
criminal case, the alleged notice as per Ex.D1 was issued
by the accused; before that date, already the complainant
was cross-examined partly by the learned counsel for the
accused. Hence, the accused failed to establish this
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



defence that the cheque was issued as security to the
mother of the complainant.
25. Another defence taken by the accused is that
the complainant had no such financial capacity to lend the
amount. In this regard, the complainant deposed in his
cross-examination that on 10.05.2016 between 06:00
p.m. to 6.30 p.m., he lent amount to the accused. He has
deposed that since 7-8 years, he is an income tax
assessee but he has not shown the hand loan to the
accused in his IT returns. He has further deposed that he
Rs.
was getting a salary of 6,50,000/- per annum during
the year 2016. He denied the suggestion that he was not
getting such salary. Except this, nothing was elicited in the
cross-examination of complainant to believe that
complainant is not capable to lend the amount. In this
regard, accused in his evidence has not stated anything
about the financial capacity of the accused. Thus, this
accused failed to prove this defence also. Only when
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59041
CRL.RP No. 258 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089432024



accused by proving probable defence has rebutted the
presumptions in favour of the complainant, the burden
shifts upon the complainant to prove his contention.
However, in the instant case, he has not established the
chit transaction with mother of the complainant and
financial incapacity of the complainant. Considering these
aspects, the trial Court convicted the accused which is
confirmed by the appellate Court. There is no erroneous
finding in this case to interfere with the aforesaid
judgments.
26. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
Criminal revision petition is dismissed .

Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SSD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17