SRI K V RAVI KUMAR vs SRI C V NAVEEN KUMAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1579 OF 2024

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

BETWEEN:

1.
SRI K V RAVI KUMAR
SON OF LATE K.V.VENKATACHALAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KAMASHETTY ENTERPRISES,
K.V.VENKATAIAH BUILIDING, B.H.ROAD,
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NARENDRA BABU.H.L, ADVOCATE FOR








SRI. PUNITH C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI C V NAVEEN KUMAR
SON OF LATE V.VASANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT M.G.ROAD, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.
…RESPONDENT


(BY SRI. H MUNISWAMY GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438
R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT,
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.03.2024 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.342/2022 BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



COURT, AT GOWRIBIDANUR AND ALSO JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 17.09.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.15/2024 PASSED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
CHIKKABALLAPURA BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRIMINAL
REVISION PETITION AND ORDER TO DISMISS THE COMPLIANT
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER

1. This is the revision petition filed by the revision
petitioner/accused under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’),
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04. 03.2024 passed in C.C.No.342/2022 on
the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur
(in short, ‘the trial Court’), confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.15/2024, dated 17.09.2024 on the file of I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur (in short, ‘the
appellate Court’.

2. The parties would be referred with their ranks, 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:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024




3. The complainant has filed the complaint before
the trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., praying for
punishing the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in
short, 'NI Act').

4. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that
the accused has borrowed a sum of ` 2,00,000/- from the
complainant in the first week of June-2021 for his family
and legal necessity and towards its repayment, the
accused has issued the subject cheque bearing No.26831
dated 20.11.2021 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,
`
Gowridibanur branch for a sum of 2,00,000/-. When the
same was presented for encashment, it was returned with
an endorsement dated 03.01.2021 as 'funds insufficient'.
Then the complainant has issued the legal notice dated
05.12.2021 to the accused through registered and
ordinary post. Even after service of said legal notice,
accused has not given reply to it. Hence, he has filed the
complaint before the trial Court on 16.01.2022.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024




5. After recording sworn statement, the trial Court
has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons
to accused.

6. After appearance of the accused, he pleaded not
guilty of the offence when the accusation leveled against
him was read over and explained to him. Then the accused
has not let in defence evidence and hence, initially, the
accused was convicted. The same was challenged before
the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.7/2023 and it
was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial

Court. Thereafter, the accused has let in defence evidence.

7. After hearing arguments, the trial Court
concluded that the complainant has proved his case and
thereby, convicted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to pay
`
double the cheque amount i.e. 4,00,000/-; out of which
`
3,90,000/- is payable to the complainant as
`
compensation and remaining 10,000/- shall be towards
State expenses.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024




8. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed the
appeal before the appellate Court, wherein after hearing
both sides, the appeal was dismissed by confirming the
judgment of the trial Court.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the accused is before

this Court.

10. Heard arguments of both sides.

11. The learned counsel Sri Narendra Babu.H.L
appearing for Sri Puneet.C for the revision
petitioner/accused would submit that the trial Court has
imposed sentence i.e. twice the cheque amount without
assigning any reason for it. Only by assigning sufficient
reasons, the trial Court ought to have imposed double the
cheque amount, which is not done in the present case. The
appellate Court also not considered this fact. He would
further submit that the accused has taken two defences
before the trial Court, the one is there was the sale
agreement between the elder brother of the accused and
complainant and pertaining to such sale agreement, the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



complainant has filed O.S No.105/2019 against his brother
and this accused is one of the signatories to the said sale
agreement. Since from the date of filing the suit, both the
complainant and the accused were not in cordial terms and
thus, there was no occasion for the complainant to lend
money in June-2021 as alleged in the complaint.
Presently, the accused is not pressing another defence of
the accused that the subject cheque was stolen by the
complainant. The trial Court and the appellate Court have
not appreciated the fact that the accused has raised the
probable defence; thus, he had rebutted the presumptions
in favour of the complainant. Hence, prayed for allowing
the revision petition.

12. The learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant Sri H. Muniswami Gowda would
submit that the accused has taken untenable defences.
Since from 2021 onwards, there is litigation between the
complainant and the accused. Only because of the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



accused, the complainant has to pay litigation expenses,
which is more than the cheque amount.

13. Initially, even though the complainant was cross-
examined in length, even though accused was convicted,
he filed the appeal, got it remanded and again filed the
appeal and now again he is challenging the same before
this Court. Thus, the complainant has to bear the legal
expenses for five times. Hence, the trial Court's imposition
of a fine equal to double the cheque amount is proper and
not erroneous , which is accepted by the appellate Court.

Hence, it requires no interference.

14. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the revision petition papers, the trial Court and the
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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



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 ?"


15. The finding of this Court on above point is in
Negative for the following:
REASONS

16. 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
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:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



"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
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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



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."


17. 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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



exercised arbitrarily and capriciously, the revisional Court
can interfere with such judgment.

18. 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 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:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



(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.


19. 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.

20. 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:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024




21. The case of the complainant is that during first
week of June 2021, he lent ` 2,00,000/- to the accused and
the accused has issued the post-dated subject cheque at
that time; when he presented it for encashment on
30.11.2021, it was returned with an endorsement 'funds
insufficient' on 05.12.2021, the complainant has issued
the legal notice to the accused, which is served upon the
accused as per the postal track consignment. On
11.01.2022, the complainant has presented the complaint
before the trial Court.

22. The accused has not disputed his signature on
the subject cheque and the cheque is from his bank
account. Thus, the ingredients of clause No.(iii) to (vi) of
Section 138 of NI Act were fulfilled by the complainant.

23. When once the complainant able to establish this
clause No.(iii) to (vi) then, automatically the statutory
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would be
attracted in favour of the complainant that, there exists a
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



legally enforceable debt and the cheque is issued for the
discharge in whole or in part of any other liability.


24. Even after service of legal notice, accused has
not made any efforts to give reply to the legal notice.

25. The accused can rebut the presumptions either
by issuing reply to the legal notice or by cross-examining
the complainant or by leading his defence evidence or by
all the above. In this case the accused has not given reply
to legal notice but let in defence evidence and also cross-
examined the complainant.

26. The defence taken by the accused is that the
complainant has stolen the cheque from the shop of the
accused when the accused had been to washroom.
However, on perusal of the cross-examination of the
accused, it is very much clear that, he failed to establish
this defence. The accused has filed private complaint that
his cheque was stolen by the complainant and said private
complaint was dismissed and attained finality.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024




27. According to the accused, there was the sale
agreement between the elder brother of the accused and
the complainant and pertaining to such sale agreement,
the complainant has filed O.S No.105/2019 against his
brother and this accused is one of the signatories to the
said sale agreement. His contention is that since from the
date of filing the suit, both the complainant and the
accused were not in cordial terms and thus, there was no
occasion for the complainant to lend money in June-2021
as alleged in the complaint. However, in the cross-
examination, the accused categorically deposed that even
after filing of the said suit, accused was frequently visiting
his shop and was in good talking terms with him. Thus,
the above contention of the accused that there was no
occasion for the complainant to lend money in June-2021

is not a probable defence.

28. Even though the complainant was cross-
examined in length, the accused has not elicited anything
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



in the cross-examination of the complainant to rebut the
presumptions in favour of complainant.

29. The cross-examination of the accused reveals the
receipt of amount from the complainant; there were series
of transactions between the complainant and the accused.
Hence, this Court holds that convicting the accused and
imposing fine against the accused by the trial Court is
proper.

30. Whether imposing twice the cheque amount by
the trial Court is proper or not is the only thing to be

decided now.

31. In this regard, it is to be noted here that the
complaint was filed on 16.01.2022. The accused has taken
several adjournments; he called the complainant thrice for
cross-examination. Initially, the accused was convicted
and sentenced, which was challenged by the accused in
the appeal and because of his request, the appeal was
allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial
Court and then the accused let in defence evidence. After
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57491
CRL.RP No. 1579 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010696332024



leading defence evidence also, the accused failed to
establish his defence of theft of the cheque; again he was
convicted; then, he filed the appeal, which was dismissed;
after such dismissal, the accused approached this Court.
Thus, the proceedings have taken place twice before the
Magistrate Court, twice before the appellate Court and
once before this Court. Thus, the accused dragged the
complainant to Courts for several times. Under these
circumstances, imposing double the amount of cheque as
fine by the trial Court is not erroneous and requires no

interference.

32. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Digitally Signed By:

K B GEETHA

(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE



SPV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27