- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20604 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 847 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SRI SADASHIVA P HEGDE S/O POKRU HEGDE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PROPRIETOR KUDAMANI ENTERPRISES R/AT SHIVAM, LAND LINKS TOWNSHIP DEREBAIL MANGALORE - 575 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K V VENKATESH S/O LATE K VENKAPPA PROPRIETOR M/s AKASH MARKETING R/AT SAI KRIPA No.4, H-37/1A2, 2ND MAIN LAND LINKS TOWNSHIP DEREBAIL MANGALORE -575 005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S V BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(2) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 27.4.2013 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.(V COURT), MANGALORE IN C.C.No.924/2008 AND THE Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20604 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2015 JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 9.7.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.A.No.201/2013 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.07.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.201/2013 by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru wherein the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C.No.924/2008 dated 27.04.2013 by JMFC V Court, Mangaluru convicting the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act” for brevity) has been confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is case of the respondent -complainant that the petitioner –accused was due a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- (rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) and has issued four cheques to pay the said amount. Out of those - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20604 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2015 four cheques one cheque for Rs.70,000/- has been honoured and remaining three cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each have been dishonoured with the endorsement “Stop payment”. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner – accused did not pay the amount of three cheques. Therefore, the respondent –complainant initiated the proceedings against the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 4. The petitioner –accused has admitted his signatures on cheques Ex.P1 to 3 and as the petitioner – accused has admitted his signatures on cheques, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act that cheques are issued for discharge of debt/other liability. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the said presumption is preponderance of probability. 5. The petitioner –accused has taken up his defence that he has issued those three cheques at the time of dissolution of partnership firm. The said defence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20604 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2015 has been suggested to P.W.1 in his cross examination and it has been denied. The accused who has been examined as D.W.1 has admitted documents confronted to him as an agreement executed by him and it has been marked as Ex.P16. Under Ex.P16, the petitioner –accused has admitted his liability to pay Rs.3,70,000/- (rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) and he has issued three cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each and one cheque for Rs.70,000/-. Said three cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each have been dishonoured and one cheque for Rs.70,000/- has been honoured. Ex.P16 itself establishes the liability of the petitioner –accused paying amount of cheques – Ex.P1 to 3. The petitioner –accused has admitted his liability to pay cheques amount under Ex.P16. The petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption raised under Section 139 of the N.I Act. 6. Considering the said aspects, learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20604 CRL.RP No. 847 of 2015 Considering the grounds raised, the Appellate Court has re-appreciated evidence on record and rightly confirmed the judgment 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.: 54