Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 234 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G B CHANDRE GOWDA
S/O LATE RAME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
OFFICE BYARAVAGUDDA ESTATE
GUDDADAMANE POST
ADUR PPST
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
PRESENTLY AT NO.325/1
14TH MAIN
5TH CROSS RMV EXTENSION
SADASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 080
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUMA KEDIYALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. MABA CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.186/1, J C COMPLEX
ANNEXURE SIRUR PARK ROAD
SHESHADRIPURAM
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
BENGALURU 560 020
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.70 BAMANNA
NEAR FARM HOUSE
JALAHALLI EAST
VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BENGALURU 560 097
REP BY ITS
ASSISTANT BY ITS
ASSISTANT MANAGER AND
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SMT HEMA PRABHU
RESPONDENT
…
(BY SRI. V.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.H.
SHAMANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 DR/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
14.01.2022 IN CRL.A.NO.2149/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 29.09.2018 IN
C.C.NO.26833/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII A.C.M.M., AT
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26833/2016 BE DISMISSED THIS
CR.RP BE ALLOWED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Sri.V.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the
respondent / complainant.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' ) in C.C.No.26833 of
2016 has been sentenced as under:
The complaint filed by the complainant finance
company against the accused is allowed.
Consequently, acting under Section 255(2) of
Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and
sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.90,00,000/-. In
default of payment of said fine amount, the accused
shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of
six months.
Out of the said fine amount ordered to pay
Rs.89,75,000/- to the complainant as compensation
and the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- shall go
to the state.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. Validity of the order of conviction is challenged
before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.2149 of
2018. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing
the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-
appreciation of the material on record dismissed the appeal of
the accused. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this court.
4. Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
vehemently contented that cheque in question did not carry
any legally recoverable debt and therefore, order of conviction
recorded by both the Courts is suffering from legal infirmity,
patent factual error.
5. She would further contend that imposing the fine
amount of Rs.25,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State
is incorrect and therefore sought for allowing the revision in
part.
6. Counsel for the respondent / complainant supports
the impugned judgments.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P2
cheque is belonging to the accused and same is dishonored.
Signature of the accused in Ex.P2 is not in dispute. According to
the complainant, in respect of the loan transactions, accused
has issued the cheque towards the repayment. On demand
promissory notes placed on record vide Ex.P14 to Ex. P18 and
the ledger account marked at Ex.P19, statement of accounts of
the accused marked at Ex.P20 to Ex.P26 and letters of
acknowledgment marked at Ex.P27 to Ex.P28 was sufficient
enough for learned Trial Magistrate to raise the presumption
available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Act.
8. No doubt the said presumption is a rebuttable
presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, accused
has neither stepped into the witness box nor placed any
documentary evidence on record.
9. Cross examination of PW1 did not yield any
sufficient material so as to rebut the presumption available to
the complainant under Section 139 of the Act.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
10. Thus, the learned Trial Magistrate convicting the
accused and sentencing the accused to pay the compensation is
just and proper, which has been rightly re-appreciated by the
learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.
11. In the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this
Court does not find any ground to annul the impugned orders
of conviction.
12. Having said thus, imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/-
towards the defraying expenses of the State needs interference
in this revision having regard to the fact that lis is privy to the
parties and no State machinery is involved.
13. Accordingly, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part, while
maintaining the conviction of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentence ordered
by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First
Appellate Court with regard to the imposition of the
fine amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the defraying
expenses of the State is hereby set aside;
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
(iii) rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
Office is directed to return the trial court records with
copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction
warrant.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the
complainant under due identification.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 234 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G B CHANDRE GOWDA
S/O LATE RAME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
OFFICE BYARAVAGUDDA ESTATE
GUDDADAMANE POST
ADUR PPST
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
PRESENTLY AT NO.325/1
14TH MAIN
5TH CROSS RMV EXTENSION
SADASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 080
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUMA KEDIYALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. MABA CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.186/1, J C COMPLEX
ANNEXURE SIRUR PARK ROAD
SHESHADRIPURAM
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
BENGALURU 560 020
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.70 BAMANNA
NEAR FARM HOUSE
JALAHALLI EAST
VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BENGALURU 560 097
REP BY ITS
ASSISTANT BY ITS
ASSISTANT MANAGER AND
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SMT HEMA PRABHU
RESPONDENT
…
(BY SRI. V.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.H.
SHAMANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 DR/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
14.01.2022 IN CRL.A.NO.2149/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 29.09.2018 IN
C.C.NO.26833/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII A.C.M.M., AT
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26833/2016 BE DISMISSED THIS
CR.RP BE ALLOWED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Sri.V.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the
respondent / complainant.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' ) in C.C.No.26833 of
2016 has been sentenced as under:
The complaint filed by the complainant finance
company against the accused is allowed.
Consequently, acting under Section 255(2) of
Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and
sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.90,00,000/-. In
default of payment of said fine amount, the accused
shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of
six months.
Out of the said fine amount ordered to pay
Rs.89,75,000/- to the complainant as compensation
and the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- shall go
to the state.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. Validity of the order of conviction is challenged
before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.2149 of
2018. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing
the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-
appreciation of the material on record dismissed the appeal of
the accused. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this court.
4. Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
vehemently contented that cheque in question did not carry
any legally recoverable debt and therefore, order of conviction
recorded by both the Courts is suffering from legal infirmity,
patent factual error.
5. She would further contend that imposing the fine
amount of Rs.25,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State
is incorrect and therefore sought for allowing the revision in
part.
6. Counsel for the respondent / complainant supports
the impugned judgments.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P2
cheque is belonging to the accused and same is dishonored.
Signature of the accused in Ex.P2 is not in dispute. According to
the complainant, in respect of the loan transactions, accused
has issued the cheque towards the repayment. On demand
promissory notes placed on record vide Ex.P14 to Ex. P18 and
the ledger account marked at Ex.P19, statement of accounts of
the accused marked at Ex.P20 to Ex.P26 and letters of
acknowledgment marked at Ex.P27 to Ex.P28 was sufficient
enough for learned Trial Magistrate to raise the presumption
available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Act.
8. No doubt the said presumption is a rebuttable
presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, accused
has neither stepped into the witness box nor placed any
documentary evidence on record.
9. Cross examination of PW1 did not yield any
sufficient material so as to rebut the presumption available to
the complainant under Section 139 of the Act.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
10. Thus, the learned Trial Magistrate convicting the
accused and sentencing the accused to pay the compensation is
just and proper, which has been rightly re-appreciated by the
learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.
11. In the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this
Court does not find any ground to annul the impugned orders
of conviction.
12. Having said thus, imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/-
towards the defraying expenses of the State needs interference
in this revision having regard to the fact that lis is privy to the
parties and no State machinery is involved.
13. Accordingly, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part, while
maintaining the conviction of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentence ordered
by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First
Appellate Court with regard to the imposition of the
fine amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the defraying
expenses of the State is hereby set aside;
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13704
CRL.RP No. 234 of 2022
HC-KAR
(iii) rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
Office is directed to return the trial court records with
copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction
warrant.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the
complainant under due identification.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25