- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19572 CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1061 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI G N SUKANANDA S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA G B AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT GUDDADAMANE VILLAGE ALDURHOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 111. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A GOPIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K N KUMARASWAMY S/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KALLUGUDDE VILLAGE ANOOR POST, VASTHARE HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI N R RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDRE PASSED IN C.C.No.2047/2019 DATED 16.09.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.No.30/2022 BY THE HON’BLE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19572 CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2022 ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AND CHARGED AGAINST HIM AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.30/2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkmagaluru, wherein the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C.No.2047/2019 dated 16.09.2021 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkmagaluru has been confirmed, wherein the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act” for brevity) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,00,000/-(rupees Ten Lakhs only) in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19572 CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2022 3. It is case of the respondent –complainant that the petitioner –accused has borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- (rupees Nine Lakhs only) agreeing to repay the amount within 20 days. The petitioner has issued cheque –Ex.P1 for repayment of amount borrowed. The said cheque has been presented for encashment and it came to be dishonoured. After demand notice, the petitioner did not repay the cheque amount and therefore, the respondent – complainant has filed complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has admitted his signature on cheque –Ex.P1. As signature on cheque is admitted, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of debt. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the said presumption is preponderance of probability. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19572 CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2022 5. The petitioner had taken defence that the said cheque is issued as security when he earlier barrowed money from the respondent –complainant. The said suggestion made to P.W.1 in his cross examination is denied by him. The petitioner –accused who has been examined as D.W.1 in his cross examination has admitted that prior to filing of this case, talks of settlement held in temple where the quantam of amount to be repaid was decided. The said aspect itself indicates that there was transaction between the petitioner and respondent as averred in the complaint. As the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption raised under Section 139 of the N.I Act, there is no need for the respondent –complainant to establish the transaction between them. More so, the respondent has produced bank account statement –Ex.P12 wherein it indicates that the respondent –accused has drawn cash of Rs.9,00,000/-(rupees Nine Lakhs only) on 04.02.2016 from the Bank. It shown that the respondent –complainant had cash on 04.02.2016 when the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19572 CRL.RP No. 1061 of 2022 -accused has borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- (rupees Nine Lakhs only) from the respondent –complainant. 6. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 7. Considering the materials on records, the Appellate Court has also confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. There are no grounds to entertain this Criminal Revision Petition. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25