K. VENKATASWAMY vs CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 270 OF 2024

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1.
K. VENKATASWAMY
S/O SRI. KARAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR BOMMANAHALLI GATE,
DEVARAMALLURU VILLAGE AND POST,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.PRAJWALA.S.N, ADVOCATE FOR








SRI.AJITH KUMAR A.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE SRI. DODDAPOOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT ANURU VILLAGE,
THIPPENAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.
…RESPONDENT


(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 17.11.2023 PASSED IN
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



CRL.A.NO.59/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA SITTING AT
CHINTAMANI AND b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE DATED 29.04.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.199/2020
ON THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT
SHIDLAGHATTA AND ETC.,
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 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short Cr.P.C.) by the revision petitioner/accused praying
for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29.04.2022 passed in CC No.199/2020 on
the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shidlaghatta,
which is confirmed in the judgment of appeal dated
17.11.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.59/2022 on the file of II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura,
sitting at Chintamani.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024




2. The parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the trial Court for the sake of
convenience and clarity.

3. The complainant has filed the private complaint
under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the trial Court praying
for taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘NI ACT’)
against the accused and to punish him in accordance with
law.

4. The case of the complainant before trial Court in
nutshell is that the complainant and the accused are
known to each other and are residents of neighbouring
villages. The accused approached the complainant in the
second week of October, 2016, requested him the hand
loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for family and legal necessity.
Believing the words, keeping faith and trust on the
accused, the complainant has lent the said amount to the
accused on 10.10.2016 by way of cash and towards its
repayment, the accused has issued the subject cheque
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



bearing No.599504 dated 04.11.2016 drawn on Canara
Bank, Gokula Branch, Bengaluru. When the complainant
presented the said cheque for encashment on 04.11.2016
through his banker, it was dishonoured and returned with
an endorsement 'funds insufficient' dated 03.12.2016.
After receipt of such endorsement, the complainant
intimated the same to the accused. Then, the complainant
has issued legal notice dated 08.12.2016 to the accused to
fulfil his legal obligation. The said notice was duly served
upon the accused. In spite of service of notice, the
accused intentionally failed to comply with the terms of
the notice, not paid the amount and not given reply to it.
Hence, prayed for taking suitable action against the
accused.

5. After recording sworn statement, the trial court
registered the case against the accused and issued
summons to him. After service of summons, the accused
appeared through his counsel and pleaded not guilty of the
offence when the accusation was read over and explained
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



to him. After the cross-examination of complainant,
statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was
recorded wherein the accused denied the case of
complainant in toto . He has let in defence evidence.

6. After hearing arguments, the trial Court concluded
that the accused has committed the offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act, convicted him for the
aforesaid offence; directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,50,000/-
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainant
approached the appellate Court.

8. After hearing arguments, the appeal was dismissed
by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this
court.

10. Even after service of notice, respondent
remained absent and unrepresented.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024




11. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner.

12. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/accused Sri Ajit Kumar A.S. would submit that
the complainant has not produced the evidence to show
that he had financial capacity to lend Rs.2,50,000/- to the
accused at relevant point of time; further not produced
any material to show that the amount in question was lent
by him because according to him, lending was on
10.10.2016 but it is through denomination of Rs.500/- and
Rs.2,000/- notes. Furthermore, the complainant has sold
his 10 guntas of land for construction of his house. Thus,
he was not having financial capacity to lend the amount.
Hence, prayed for allowing the revision petition.

13. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for
the revision petitioner, verifying the revision petition
papers, the trial Court and the appellate Court records , the
point that arises for consideration is:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



"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 ?"

14. The finding of this Court on above point is in
'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
15. 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
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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



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 merits of the case
which could have been avoided especially when the
subject matter had come under its revisional
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



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
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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



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."

16. Thus, only if the judgment of the trial Court
confirmed by appellate Court is perverse or grossly
erroneous, or grossly unreasonable, or wholly unreliable,
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.

Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



17. The alleged offence in this case is the offence under
Section 138 of NI Act; to attract the offence under Section
138 of NI Act, the complainant has to satisfy the following
ingredients:
(i) that there exists legally enforceable debt;
(ii) that the cheque was drawn from the
account of bank of the accused 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 30 days of the receipt
of information by him from the bank regarding the
return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make
payment of the said amount of money to the payee
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15
days of the receipt of the said notice;
(vii) Filing of the complaint within a month from the
date of expiry of the grace period of fifteen days
before a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial
Magistrate not below first class.

18. 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 NI
Act. There is also statutory presumption under Section 139
of NI 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 NI Act are rebuttable
presumptions.

19. 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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



produced by either party or erroneously appreciated the
evidence.

20. Ex.C.1-Cheque is dated 04.11.2016 drawn for a
sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and it was dishonoured as per
Ex.C.2 as 'funds insufficient' dated 03.12.2016.
21. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice
dated 08.12.2016 to the accused. As per Ex.P.5, it was
served on the accused. But the accused has not given any
reply to the notice. The address mentioned in the legal
notice and the address of the accused is one and the
same. Hence, there is deemed presumption that the notice
issued to the accused is duly served upon him. The
accused has not given any reply to the notice.
22. The accused is not only an agriculturist but also an
advocate by profession. After service of legal notice, filing
of the present complaint and appearance by the accused
before the trial Court, Exs.D.1 to D.3 came into existence.
According to these documents, the accused has taken the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



plea that he had obtained loan from one Devaraju; after
its repayment, Devaraju has not returned the subject
cheque which was taken for security and hence, he has
lodged the complaint before police. In the statement of
Devaraju before police, it is recited that the said cheque
was misplaced in his house accidentally and if he traces it,
he would produce. The said Devaraju was examined as
DW.2 by the accused. In that evidence he has taken a
completely different stand that he has been called to the
police station wherein his signatures were taken but he
has not stated that there is no money transaction between
him and the accused and the subject cheque is not
concerned to him and the police have taken his signature
only by saying that the accused has given complaint and
he has not stated before the police that the cheque was
misplaced and if he traces it, he would return it.
23. Thus, Exs.D.1 to D.3 are in no way helpful to the
accused to prove his defense that it was given to one
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



Devaraju as security. However, when said defence was not
at all established by him, the accused has taken another
defence that he stopped payment of the cheque by giving
instructions to the bank.
24. In the cross-examination of the complainant, it is
only elicited that the complainant has paid the amount in
Rs.500/- and Rs.2,000/- denomination notes during
October-2016. However, during October, 2016 there were
no notes of Rs.2000 denomination. Only because of this
reason, the presumption in favour of the complainant
cannot be rebutted.
25. The complainant has deposed that he is doing
agriculture, tethering cow, sheep, hen and getting
substantial income and his son is also working as an
Engineer. Thus, nothing was elicited in his cross-
examination to disbelieve the financial capacity of the
complainant. Furthermore, in his evidence, the accused
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60959
CRL.RP No. 270 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010097282024



has not taken that plea. He has not even given reply to
legal notice.
26. Thus, the accused failed to rebut the presumptions
in favour of the complainant, which is properly appreciated
by the trial Court and the appellate Court. There is no
material to show that the trial Court and the appellate
Court have not examined the available material or relevant
material or examined any irrelevant material or their
judgment is grossly erroneous or capricious. Hence,
interference of the judgment of the trial Court and the
Appellate Court is not required.
27. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed .
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA


(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
rs/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20