CRL.RP/163/2026 of SRI. K. NARAYANASWAMY Vs SRI. R. MANJUNATH, on 23 June 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the trial Court are that the accused had entered into an agreement dated 08.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) towards payment of sale consideration, which is due to be paid by the accused towards the share of the complainant, who is one of the developers of the properties bearing No. 13, property bearing No.36 and western portion of property bearing No.35 formed out of old assessment No.33/1, new No.33/3, situated at Hunnegere Grama, Dasanapura, Bengaluru. In terms of the agreement dated 08.01.2018

HC-KAR

entered into by the accused and the complainant, the original certificates with respect to the transactions stated supra are in the custody of the complainant. As such, accused issued 3 cheques and when the said cheques were presented, same are returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’, dated 03.05.2018, 13.05.2018 and 02.06.2018 respectively. Thereafter, the legal notice was issued to the accused and the same was duly served and he has issued reply to the said notice on 22.06.2018. But it is contended that the accused intentionally not maintained sufficient balance in his account to honour the said cheques given by him. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken so also the accused was secured. He did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

3. In order to prove the case, the complainant is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. During the course of cross-examination of the accused, documents of Exs.P14 to P16 were also confronted. The accused was subjected to recording of

HC-KAR

statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter he examined himself as D.W.1. The trial Court taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 that he did not disputed the issuance of cheque and signature at Exs.P1 to P3 and also the amount which is mentioned and claimed as per Ex.P1.

4. The trial Court in paragraph No.14 considered the case of the accused and his evidence is also extracted in the said paragraph and so also considered the same in paragraph No.15 by taking note of defence and also the admission on the part of D.W.1/accused. Further, in paragraph No. 17, the relevant portion of evidence of D.W.1 is extracted and gave a finding that when the cheque was issued towards liability and that too amount was mentioned in the agreement itself and also by considering the material on record, the accused fails to rebut the evidence of complainant even though he examined himself as D.W.1 and got mark 5 documents as Exs.D1 to Ex.D5. Further, the trial Court comes to the

HC-KAR

conclusion that the case of complainant is proved and accused failed to prove his defence.

5. The appellate Court also considering the material on record re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence. An attempt is made by the accused before the appellate Court by filing an application under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure, permitting him to lead additional evidence in respect of the suit in OS No.408/2024 and that too marking of the plaint and the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the same cannot substantiate the defence of the accused and rejected the said application and confirm the order of the trial Court.

6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that though the accused entered into an agreement with the complainant and issued the cheque, but the subject matter of the land is in dispute and suit is also filed and the same is pending for consideration. As such, both the aspects have not been

HC-KAR

taken note of by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. The counsel would also submit that the application filed under Section 391 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to lead additional evidence in the suit in O.S.No.408/2024 is also not entertained.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent would submit that the trial Court and the appellate Court considered the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents which have been marked, particularly, the fact that the accused has admitted the issuance of Cheques Exs.P1 to P3, but not rebutted the case by placing any preponderance of probabilities with regard to his defence is concerned and as such, it does not requires any interference of this Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also considering the material on record, particularly D.W.1-accused categorically admitted the signatures available in Exs.P1 to P3, so also the

HC-KAR

document of agreement and also though took the contention that suit is pending for consideration and the same cannot be accepted. Once the cheque is issued and the same is towards legal liability acknowledging the receipt of the amount and towards the liability on the issue of the cheque and pendency of suit in O.S.No.408/2024 cannot be a ground to entertain this revision. When there is no rebuttal evidence against the case of the complainant and unless the same is rebutted, no doubt the presumption is rebuttable under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short) and the same has to be rebutted. But no such rebuttal evidence is made by the accused except an attempt is made before the appellate Court to produce the copy of the plaint which cannot be considered and the same is not the material document when the liability is acknowledged and issuance of Cheque is not disputed so also the same is not rebutted, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. The

HC-KAR

scope of revision is very limited i.e., only to examine the legality and correctness of the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the same is not warranted in the case on hand since the Cheque is issued towards the liability. Therefore, no ground is made out to admit the revision. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39