- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2023 BETWEEN: K.S. RAVI KUMAR @ K.S. REVAPPA, SON OF K.M. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PADDY MERCHANT, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 61, 2ND CROSS, SIDDARUDA NAGAR, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTH T.C, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: B.V. CHANDRAPPA, SON OF S.B. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOLESIDDAPURA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAKESH A.H, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.5034/2022 DATED 02.06.2023 CONSEQUENTLY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED THE LEARNED PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.172/2022 DATED 07.07.2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.5034/2022 by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Bhadravathi whereunder the judgment of conviction dated 07.07.2022 passed in C.C.No.172/2022 by Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as `N.I. Act’) and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months has been affirmed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 2. Heard learned counsels on both sides and perused the impugned judgments and Trial Court records. 3. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court was that complainant and accused are well-known to each other from several years. On 20.05.2015 the petitioner - accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant for his domestic purpose and financial needs and agreed to repay the said amount after two months. In that regard, the petitioner - accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No.002214 dated 25.07.2015 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on South Indian Bank, B.H.Road, Bhadravathi. The said cheque has been presented by the complainant for encashment and it came to be dishonoured for reason "funds insufficient" under bank memo dated 28.07.2015. The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused by RPAD on 10.08.2015 demanding payment of the cheque amount. The said legal notice has been served on the petitioner - accused on 14.08.2015. The petitioner - - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 accused has not paid amount of the cheque within 15 days and, therefore, the complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 4. The respondent - complainant has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 9. The statement of the petitioner - accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner - accused has examined himself as DW.1 and no documents are marked on his side. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments on both side and appreciating the evidence on record convicted the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner - accused challenged the judgment of conviction before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.5034/2022. The said criminal appeal came to be dismissed on merits affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the cheque given by the petitioner - accused to one Narappa (who is the husband of complainant's sister) as a security to the amount borrowed from him has been misused through the complainant even in spite of repayment of the amount borrowed in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. He submits that the complainant has admitted his relation with said Narappa even though he has denied the receipt of the cheque by him. The complainant has not proved the transaction and his capacity to lend huge money. Without considering all these aspects the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - accused and learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and prayed for dismissal of this Revision Petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 7. It is the specific case of the respondent - complainant that he lend a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner - accused on 20.05.2015 and in order to repay the said amount borrowed, petitioner has issued cheque Ex.P.1. The petitioner - accused who has been examined as DW.1 has admitted his signature on the cheque Ex.P.1. As the signature on the cheque is admitted, a presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of N.I.Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of the debt. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the said presumption is that of preponderance of probability. 8. The petitioner - accused has not issued any reply to the legal notice even though it has been served on him personally. The petitioner - accused has taken up defence in cross-examination of PW.1 that he had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from one Narappa (the husband of complainant's sister) and, at the time of borrowing, he had given a signed cheque and a promissory note and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 even after repayment of the amount borrowed, the said Narappa has not returned the cheque and promissory note and cheque has been misused through this complainant. The said defence has been put to PW.1 in his cross- examination and he has denied the same. The PW.1 has only admitted his relation with said Narappa. 9. DW.1 in his chief-examination has put forth his defence and the same has been denied in the cross- examination by the complainant. Therefore, the defence of the petitioner - accused remained unestablished. The petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 139 of N.I.Act. As the presumption is not rebutted, there is no need for the complainant to prove the transaction and his capacity to lend the money. 10. 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: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 “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 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, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 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.” 11. 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25118 CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023 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.” 12. Considering the above aspects, the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is proper and correct. The Appellate Court has also re-appreciated the evidence on record and rightly affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. There is no merit in this Revision Petition. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK