P MUNIRAJU vs M/S MANJUNATH SERVICE (PETROL BUNK)

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1072 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

P. MUNIRAJU
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT C/O CHANDRASHEKARIAH
WARD NO. 20, DRN LAYOUT
DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU - 562 110.
…PETITIONER








(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. MANJUNATH SERVICE (PETROL BUNK)
NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
C.B. PURA ROAD, VEMGAL VILLAGE
KOLAR TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. MANJUANTH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
…RESPONDENT



(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S
438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED BY THE
LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC KOLAR DTD 25.04.2023
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



PASSED IN CC.NO.204/2018 AND IN CRL.A.NO.64/2023 DTD
22.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Section 397(1)
read with Section 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 25.04.2023 passed in
C.C.No.204/2018 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kolar which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.64/2023 dated 22.07.2024 on the file of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Kolar and to acquit the
accused.
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:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



3. The complainant has filed the complaint before
the trial Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C., to take
cognizance of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act,1881 (in short 'N.I.Act') against the
accused.
4. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that
on 01.12.2017 accused approached the complainant for
Rs.
financial assistance of 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs
only) to meet his urgent family needs and to discharge his
debts and agreed to repay the same within 15 days. The
Rs.
complainant has given the loan of 9,00,000/- on
01.12.2017 at his residence and received at the petrol
bunk of complainant on the same day, the accused has
issued the subject cheque No.633062 drawn on South
India Bank Limited, Devanahalli Branch dated 16.12.2017
Rs.
for a sum of 9,00,000/-. The complainant presented
the same for encashment through his banker Pragathi
Grameen Bank, Vemagal Branch on 22.12.2017 whereas
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



the same was returned unpaid with an endorsement on
22.12.2017 that 'funds insufficient'. Then, the complainant
has issued the legal notice to the accused through his
counsel dated 22.01.2017, which was served on accused
on 02.02.2018. However, he has not given any reply to it.
Hence, the complaint is filed on 19.02.2018 to take
suitable action against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (in short 'N.I.Act') and Section 420 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').
5. After filing the complaint, recording sworn
statement of the complainant, the trial Court has taken
cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act,
issued summons to the accused. The accused appeared
through his counsel and pleaded not guilty of the offence
when accusation levelled against him is read over and
explained to him.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



6. Afterwards, the statement of the accused under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded and the complainant
was cross examined. The accused has not let in defence
evidence.
7. After hearing arguments, the trial Court came
to the conclusion that accused has committed the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and convicted
him for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and
Rs.
sentenced him to pay fine of 12,05,000/- out of which
Rs.12,00,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as
Rs.
compensation and 5,000/- towards the expenses of
State.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has
preferred the appeal before the appellate Court.
9. After hearing arguments, the appellate Court
dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the
trial Court.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



10. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner
is before this court.
11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner
Sri. Manjunath K V would submit that the transaction was
not with the complainant and the accused; the accused
has issued the cheque to the sister of the complainant by
name-Netravathi in respect of sale transaction of an
immovable property and it is not the loan transaction
between the complainant and the accused as alleged in
the complaint. Even though this fact is elicited in the
cross-examination of the complainant, the trial Court and
the appellate Court have not examined this fact in an
appropriate manner. Furthermore, even though the
Rs.
cheque amount is only 9,00,000/-, the trial Court has
Rs.
imposed fine of 12,05,000/-, which is excessive without
assigning any reason for imposing such a huge amount as
fine. This fact is not examined by the appellate Court also.
On the other hand, the appellate Court has imposed
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



Rs.
interest at 9% per annum on 12,00,000/- from the date
of said judgment till realisation which is also not in
accordance with law. Hence, prayed for allowing the
revision petition.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would also submit that he is ready to pay the cheque
Rs.
amount of 9,00,000/- and it was brought to the notice
of the appellate Court also by filing memo but it was not
considered. Even now, he is ready to pay the cheque
amount.
13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would further submit that in Sanjabit Tari vs. Kishore S
Borcar & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1755/2010 dated
25.09.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the
payment is made before commencement of evidence, then
no interest could be awarded, but if it is after recording
evidence, then 5% of the cheque amount could be
imposed for compounding the offence and that was not
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



followed by the appellate Court. Hence, prayed for
allowing the revision petition.
14. The learned counsel for respondent-Sri
Rajashekar S would submit that the trial Court and the
appellate Court have examined the records in accordance
with law and the trial court passed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, which is affirmed by the
appellate Court by assigning cogent reasons. The accused
has not at all rebutted the presumptions available in
favour of the complainant. Furthermore, imposing interest
at 9% per annum by the appellate Court is also just and
reasonable and requires no interference.
15. 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 petitioners establish perversity or
grossly erroneousness in the judgment of the trial court
and appellate court or the judgment of the trial court
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



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 ?"

16. The finding of this Court on above point is in
Affirmative for the following:
REASONS
17. 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 .
18. 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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



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

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



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 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.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



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."
19. 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.
20. 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;
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



(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;
(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.
If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied, then
there shall be 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.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



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 Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act are

rebuttable presumptions.
21. With this background, the facts of the present
case are to be analysed afresh.
22. The case of the complainant in nut shell that
Rs.
accused has borrowed a sum of 9,00,000/- from the
complainant to meet his urgent needs on 01.12.2017 and
on the same day, executed the subject cheque in favour of
complainant by putting date as 16.12.17. But when it was
presented for encashment, it was returned dishonoured
with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 22.12.2017.
Hence, he issued legal notice dated 22.01.2018 to the
accused which was served on 02.02.2018 but he has not
given any reply to it and not paid the cheque amount.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



Hence, the complaint was filed on 19.02.2018. The sum
and substance of the cross-examination of the
complainant and the evidence of the accused establishes
that the accused admits his signature on the cheque and it
is issued from his bank.
23. On careful perusal of the aforesaid facts, the
date of cheque, presentation of the same, dishonour,
service of legal notice and filing of complaint, it is clear
that complainant has fulfilled clause Nos. (iii) to (vi) of the
ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act. When once he
establishes these facts, then the presumption in favour of
complainant under Section 118 and statutory presumption
under 139 of N.I. Act would arose that the cheque was
issued for consideration, it was issued on the date
mentioned in it; there exists legally recoverable debt and
to discharge the same, the cheque was issued.
24. The accused can rebut these presumptions
either by giving reply to the legal notice or by cross-
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



examining the complainant or by leading defence evidence
or by all the above three modes.
25. In the instant case, the accused has not given
reply to the legal notice but he cross-examined the
complainant and also let in his evidence.
26. When once the accused admitted his signature
on the cheque and it was from his bank account; then, it is
his burden to establish that what was the transaction
under which he has given this cheque. Even though it is
the case of accused that he has not issued the cheque to
complainant by cross-examining the complainant he had
taken the defence that it was issued to one Netravathi who
is the sister of complainant in respect of a transaction on
immovable property; in his evidence, he has deposed that
he does not know how the cheque came in possession of
Netravathi.
27. It is the specific contention of complainant that
he has given the amount to accused in his petrol bunk and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of
complainant to disbelieve his version in examination-in-
chief. Even in the cross-examination, the accused taken
defence that he does not know how the subject cheque
came in possession of Netravathi but he has not taken any
action against said Netravathi. Thus, he has not rebutted
the presumptions available in favour of complainant.
28. Considering these aspects, rightly the trial
Court convicted the accused which is confirmed by the
appellate Court.
29. The trial Court has sentenced the complainant
Rs. Rs.
to pay a fine of 12,05,000/- out of which 5,000/- is
Rs.
towards State and remaining 12,00,000/- is payable to
the complainant as compensation. The appellate Court
confirmed it by imposing the interest at 9% per annum on
Rs.
the aforesaid amount of 12,00,000/-.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



30. In this regard, in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court cited supra in Sanjabit Tari's case at paragraph
No.38, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
" Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are
still pending and interest rates have fallen in the last few
years, this Court is of the view that it is time to 'revisit and
tweak the guidelines'. Accordingly, the aforesaid
guidelines of compounding are modified as under:
(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before
recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then
the Trial Court may allow compounding of the offence
without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.
(b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque
amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to the
pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court, the
Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on
payment of additional 5% of the cheque amount with the
Legal Services Authority or such other Authority as the
Court deems fit.
(c)Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made
before the Sessions Court or a High Court in Revision or
Appeal, such Court may compound the offence on the
condition that the accused pays 7.5% of the cheque
amount by way of costs.
(d)Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before this
Court, the figure would increase to 10% of the cheque
amount."
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024



31. These guidelines are given in respect of
payments that might have been made by the accused
during pendency of the proceedings. In the instant case,
except saying that accused is ready to pay the cheque
amount, no other effort is made by the accused to pay the
said amount, except depositing 50% of the amount before
the trial Court at the time of suspension of sentence order
passed by this Court. Thus, there is no payment by the
accused. Even then, as per the guidelines given by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, as the bank
rates are declining in the last few years, this Court is of
the opinion that imposing interest at 7.5% of the cheque
amount would meet the ends of justice instead of 9%
awarded by the appellate Court.
32. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER

i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part .
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57482
CRL.RP No. 1072 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010490752024




ii. The judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court
affirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed.

iii. The sentence imposed by the trial Court of
Rs.
12,05,000/- is also confirmed. However, imposing
9% of interest by the appellate Court of is modified
to 7.5% interest on Rs.9,00,000/- and not on
Rs.12,00,000/-. Except this modification, the
remaining part of the judgment of the trial Court and
the appellate Court is unaltered.

iv. It is made clear that the accused shall make the
aforesaid payment within two (2) months before the
trial Court.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE






SSD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37