- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18830 CRL.RP No. 423 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 423 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI KISHAN T C S/O LATE T .G. CHUNDAIA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.16 3RD CROSS SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT NEAR ZOY SCHOOL VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU 560 097 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA M V, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S SRI VENKATESH ENTERPRISES NO. 48/4, 1ST MAIN 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS SUDHAMANAGAR BENGALURU 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING OPERATIONS SRI. T.V. VENKATESH …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BEERESHA H.S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18830 CRL.RP No. 423 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.129/2023 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-62) AND ORDER DATED 30.12.2022 PASSED BY THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND A.C.M.M. AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-22) IN C.C.NO.3516/2021 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed in Crl.A. No. 129/2023 by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction dated 30.12.2022 passed in C.C. No. 3516/2021 by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-22) for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18830 CRL.RP No. 423 of 2024 Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as `N.I. Act’) has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 3. Issuance of the cheques has been admitted by the petitioner – accused. Contention of the petitioner – accused was that the cheques Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are issued as security for the transaction between the petitioner and respondent. As the cheques are admitted a presumption has been drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheques are issued for payment of legally enforceable liability. Said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Standard of proof for rebutting the said presumption is preponderance of probability. Petitioner – accused has to rebut the said presumption. Except suggesting that the cheques are issued as a security for the transaction of the year 2017, there is no other evidence brought on record to prove the defence. D.W.1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18830 CRL.RP No. 423 of 2024 himself has admitted in his chief-examination that there was transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. As the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act has not been rebutted, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner – accused for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as other ingredients of the said offence are established. Even the appellate Court, considering the grounds raised, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner – accused challenging the judgment of conviction. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalamani tex and Another Vs. P Balasubramanian, reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283 has held as under: “13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18830 CRL.RP No. 423 of 2024 on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. This point of law has been crystalized by this Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat in the following words: “18. In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the trial court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the appellant accused.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18830 CRL.RP No. 423 of 2024 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 807 has held as under: “55. As rightly contended by the appellant, there is a fundamental flaw in the way both the Courts below have proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record. Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18830 CRL.RP No. 423 of 2024 6. Considering all these aspects there is no illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court. In the result, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62