GARUDADHRI DEVELOPERS vs SREE AKSHAYA HOUSING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 183 OF 2024

C/W

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 49 OF 2024

IN CRL.RP No. 183/2024

BETWEEN:

SREE AKSHAYA HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.5, GROUND FLOOR,
KONENA AGRAHARA,
VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
MRS. MOHAN KUMARI.N
…PETITIONER









(BY SRI MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. GARUDADHRI DEVELOPERS
PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT VYNATHEYA DHAMA,
BHARATH GAJARIA LAYOUT ROAD,
SUBASH NAGAR, NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE PARTNER,
M.G. RANGADHAMAIAH,
2. SRI. M.G. RANGADHAMAIAH
S/O LATE C. GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


RESIDING AT VYNATHEYA DHAMA,
MALLARA BANASWADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ONLY A PORTION OF JUDGMENT OF
THE APPEAL COURT DATED 15.12.2023 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.1229/2023 BY THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-60), AT BANGALORE, BY
MODIFYING THE FINE AMOUNT / COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,05,00,000/- AGAINST THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,35,000/- PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN
C.C.NO.2455/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XL A.C.M.M
BENGALURU DATED 03.08.2023, PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT
IN C.C.NO.2455/2019 BY THE XL A.C.M.M AT ENGALURU AND
CONFIRM THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,35,00,000/-.
IN CRL.RP NO. 49/2024
BETWEEN:
1.
GARUDADHRI DEVELOPERS
PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
VYNATHEYA DHAMA,
BHARATH GAJARIA LAYOUT,
ROAD, SUBASH NAGAR,
NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE PARTNER
M.G. RANGADHAMAIAH.

2.
SRI. M.G. RANGADHAMAIAH
S/O LATE C. GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT VYNATHEYA DHAMA,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


MALLARA BANAWADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SREE AKSHAYA HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.5, GROUND FLOOR,
KONENA AGRAHARA,
VIMANAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 017
REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2023
PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.1229/2023 BY THE LIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-60) AT
BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition No.49/2024 is filed by
the revision petitioner/accused challenging the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.08.2023 on
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


the file of the XL Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru (in short 'trial Court') and the judgment dated
15.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1229/2023
confirming the conviction and modification of sentence on
the file of the LIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-
60), Bengaluru (in short 'appellate Court').

2. The Criminal Revision Petition No.183/2024 is
filed by the Revision Petitioner/Complainant challenging
the judgment dated 15.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.1229/2023 on the file of the LIX Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge (CCH-60), Bengaluru (in short 'appellate
Court') with regard to reduction of sentence.

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

4. The facts established before the trial Court and
the appellate Court are that the complainant is the
Society and accused is the land developer; there was
Memorandum of Understanding (in short 'MOU') dated
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


21.10.2015 as per Ex.P.9 between the complainant and
the accused.

5. According to said MOU, the accused ought to
have procured the lands for and on behalf of the Society.
The complainant is a Housing Co-operative Society and
intended to provide sites to its members. In that regard,
the complainant has paid ` 1,30,10,000/-; there is a
recital in MOU that the accused has received said amount,
`
but only 1,10,00,000/- was paid through bank transaction
as per recitals of MOU. Because the accused could not
procure lands on behalf of the Society; thus, cancellation
of MOU came into existence between the complainant and
the accused on 29.11.2017. Under said document,
accused agreed to pay a sum of ` 1,21,10,000/-.
Accordingly, the subject cheque was issued by the accused
to the complainant for a sum of ` 1,21,10,000/-. As per the
assurance of the accused, the date 12.09.2018 is inserted
the cheque and the said cheque was presented for
encashment and it was returned dishonoured with shara
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


'funds insufficient' on 15.09.2018. Afterwards, the accused
has paid ` 10,00,000/- each on 20.09.2018 and
06.10.2018 towards interest and requested for
nd
encashment in 2 week of November-2018. Again on
14.11.2018, the complainant has presented the cheque for
encashment for the total amount of ` 1,21,10,000/-, which
was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.
Then the legal notice dated 27.11.2018 was issued to both
official and residential address of the accused;; notice to
official address returned unserved; hence, again notice
dated 06.12.2018 was issued which was served on
08.12.2018. Hence, the complainant has filed a complaint
before the trial Court on 16.01.2019.

6. After recording sworn statement, registering the
case by taking cognizance of the offence, summons issued
to the accused, who appeared and pleaded not guilty of
the offence when the accusation levelled against him was
read over and explained to him. Later accused denied the
case of complainant in toto in the statement recorded
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short 'Cr.P.C.). The complainant was cross-examined in
length and accused has also let in defence evidence and
examined the witness.

7. After hearing arguments, the trial Court
concluded that the accused has committed the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in
short 'N.I. Act'), convicted him for the aforesaid offence
and sentenced to pay a fine of ` 1,35,00,000/-. The same
was challenged before the appellate Court. The appellate
Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the quantum
of sentence to ` 1,05,00,000/- by considering the fact that
already ` 20,00,000/- was paid by the accused after
issuance of cheque.

8. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/accused Sri Mallikarjun N. K. would submit that
even though the transaction between the parties is
admitted, as per Section 56 of the N.I. Act, the
complainant ought to present a cheque by making an
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


indorsement of receipt of ` 20,00,000/- but it is not being
done. Hence, the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is
not attracted. In this regard, he places reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dashrathbhai
Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and
1
Anr and also the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in M/s. Nazama Traders vs. M/s. Arihant
2
Marketing . These technical and legal aspects were not
considered by the trial Court and the appellate Court.
Hence, prayed for allowing the revision petition.

9. The learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant Sri Manjunath G. Khandekar
would submit that the accused has not disputed the
issuance of the cheque, receipt of the amount under MOU
and he has not disputed that the cheque was presented
second time for the entire amount. Furthermore, the
complainant is a Co-operative Society and the amount
involved in this case is the public money. The members

1
(2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 578 dt. 11.10.2022

2

In Criminal RP.No.6/2016 c/w. Criminal R.P.No.1362/2015 dtd. 08.09.2023
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


would suffer if the compensation awarded by the Court
would be less than the compensation awarded by the trial
Court. The money value is being deteriorated and there is
high inflation. Hence, the compensation awarded by the
trial Court is proper and reduction by the appellate Court
is not correct. Hence, prayed for allowing his revision
petition and dismissal of the revision petition of the
accused.

10. 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?"


Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024



11. The finding of this Court on above point is in
'Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS

12. 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
3
(Criminal) No.2247 of 2024 . 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

3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485 dt. 04.08.2026
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


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 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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


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 re-appreciating 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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


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."

13. 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.

14. 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 exists legally enforceable debt;
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


(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 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.



15. If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied,
then there shall be a presumption under Section 139 of
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


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.

16. The case of the complainant is that the Housing
Co-operative Society and accused is the land developer.
There was Memorandum of Understanding (in short 'MOU')
dated 21.10.2015 as per Ex.P.9 between the complainant
and the accused.

17. According to MOU, the accused ought to have
procured the lands for and on behalf of the Society. The
complainant intended to provide sites to its members,
hence, enters into MOU with accused for procuring lands.
`
In that regard, the accused has received 1,30,10,000/-
`
but only 1,10,00,000/- was paid under MOU. Because the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


accused could not procure lands on behalf of the Society;
MOU was cancelled and the subject cheque dated
12.09.2018 was issued by the accused to the complainant
for a sum of ` 1,21,10,000/-. The said cheque was
presented for encashment and it was returned
dishonoured with shara 'funds insufficient' on 15.09.2018.
Afterwards the accused has paid ` 10,00,000/- each on
20.09.2018 and 06.10.2018 towards repayment of the
part of the subject cheque. Again on 14.11.2018, the
complainant has presented the cheque for encashment for
the total amount of ` 1,21,10,000/-, which was
dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'.
Then legal notice dated 27.11.2018 was issued and served
on 06.12.2018 to his residential address but unserved to
his official address. Again notice dated 06.12.2018 was
issued which was served on 08.12.2018.


18. The complainant has filed the complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. because the cheque issued by the
accused for a sum of ` 121,10,000/- was dishonoured and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


even after service of legal notice, accused failed to pay the
cheque amount. Even though the accused admitted the
issuance of cheque and it is from his bank account, it is
also an admitted fact that after first presentation of the
cheque, the accused has made payment of totally
` 20,00,000/- on two occasions. Even though, it is
contended in the complaint that said payment is towards
interest, but it is not deposed so by P.W.1 in his cross-
examination; no document is produced to prove that said
payment is towards interest. Further, it is clearly deposed
by the complainant that there was no contract between
the parties regarding interest. Thus, said payment of
` 20,00,000/- is towards part payment of cheque amount;
only after making such payment, the cheque was
presented second time for the whole cheque amount.


19. Whether, the presentation of the cheque for the
whole amount by the accused is hit by Section 56 of the
NI Act or not is to be examined.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024



20. Under these circumstances, reading of Section
56 of the N.I. Act is relevant. It is extracted as follows:
"56. Indorsement for part of sum due - No writing
on a negotiable instrument is valid for the purpose of
negotiation if such writing purports to transfer only a
part of the amount appearing to be due on the
instrument; but where such amount has been partly
paid, a note to that effect may be indorsed on the
instrument, which may then be negotiated for the
balance."

21. Thus, after issuance of cheque, before its
presentation a part payment is made by the accused, then
as per the above provision of Section 56 of the N.I. Act,
there shall be an indorsement on the cheque and cheque
is to be presented for the balance amount and not for the
whole cheque amount. If it is not done, then the offence
under Section 138 of N.I. Act would not be attracted. In
this regard, this Court places reliance on paragraph No.29
4
of the judgment Dashrathbhai's case cited supra. It
reads as follows:

4

(2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 578
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


" 29. Under Section 56 read with Section 15 of
the Act, an endorsement may be made by recording
the part-payment of the debt in the cheque or in a
note appended to the cheque. When such an
endorsement is made, the instrument could still be
used to negotiate the balance amount. If the
endorsed cheque when presented for encashment of
the balance amount is dishonoured, then the drawee
can take recourse to the provisions of Section 138.
Thus, when a part-payment of the debt is made after
the cheque was drawn but before the cheque is
encashed, such payment must be endorsed on the
cheque under Section 56 of the Act. The cheque
cannot be presented for encashment without recording
the part payment. If the unendorsed cheque is
dishonoured on presentation, the offence under
Section 138 would not be attracted since the cheque
does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the
time of encashment. "

22. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment,
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Nazama
5
Traders's case cited supra at paragraph No.26 held as
follows:
"26. It is very much clear that as per the facts
of the this case also, there was payment of money by

5

in Criminal RP.No.6/2016 c/w. Criminal R.P.No.1362/2015
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


the accused towards the cheque amount and even
after then as per his own evidence, accused is due to
pay ` 26,25,000/- and the complainant has received
part payment of ` 24,75,000/- as per the settlement.
When complainant has received substantial amount,
then complainant would have resorted to Section 56 of
the Act. Section 15 of the Act also speaks of
indorsement which reads as under:
"When a maker or holder of a
negotiable instrument signs the same, otherwise
than as such maker, for the purpose of
negotiation, on the back or face thereof or on a
slip of paper annexed thereto, or so signs for the
same purpose a stamped paper intended to be
completed as a negotiable instrument, he is said
to indorse the same, and is called the "indorser".
and held that the offence under Section 138 of N.I.
Act is not made out.

23. Thus, in case of part payment or in case the
amount due from the accused is less than the amount
mentioned in the cheque then, it was inevitable upon the
complainant to endorse the part payment on the cheque
and present the cheque for balance amount. If the cheque
is presented for part payment even then if it is
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


dishonoured then, the offence under Section 138 of N.I.
Act would be attracted, and not if the cheque is presented
for the whole amount.

24. The rebuttal evidence shall not require the proof
beyond reasonable doubt. But if he produces the evidence
based on the standard of proof of preponderance of
probability, it is sufficient to rebut the presumption
available under Section 139 of N.I. Act.

25. The trial Court and the appellate Court have not
at all examined this aspect, even though there is
categorical admission by the complainant in respect of part
payment of ` 20,00,000/- by the accused. Thus, the
aforesaid judgments are non-consideration of material
evidence. Hence, requires interference in the revision.
However, the liberty is always there to the complainant to
pursue his remedy of recovery of the balance amount by
appropriate recourse to law.

26. Hence, this Court passes the following:

Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


ORDER
i.Criminal Revision Petition No.49/2024 is allowed .
ii. Criminal Revision Petition No.183/2024 is
dismissed .
iii.The judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2023 passed
in C.C.No.2455/2019 on the file of the XL Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, confirmed by the
judgment of appeal dated 15.12.2023 in Criminal
Appeal No.1229/2023 on the file of the LIX City Civil
& Sessions Judge (CCH-60), Bengaluru are hereby
set aside; the order of sentence modified by the
appellate Court is hereby set aside.

iv. The bail bond of accused is cancelled and accused is
set at liberty.
v.Send back trial Court records and appellate Court
records with copy of this judgment to the trial Court.

vi. The amount already deposited by the accused and
withdrawn by the complainant is to be refunded to
the accused as per Section 148(3) of the N.I. Act,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60544
CRL.RP No. 183 of 2024
C/W CRL.RP No. 49 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010055462024


within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.

Digitally Signed By:

K B GEETHA

(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE




SSD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16