- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20276 CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1269 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH K, S/O KENCHAPPA M.S., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.106, I FLOOR, BRUNDAVANA APARTMENT, 10TH MAIN, DEFENSE LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU – 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY SHETTY B., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYAN, S/O MR.M.MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 7TH CROSS, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, KADIRENAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 061. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.FEROZE NIZAM, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 22.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LIX Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20276 CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2019 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1527/2017 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2017 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.12488/2016 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.A. AND BY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED. 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 22.07.2019 passed in Crl.A. No.1527/2017 by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge whereunder the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C. No.12488/2016 dated 10.10.2017 passed by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `N.I. Act’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20276 CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2019 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 3. Petitioner has admitted his signature on the cheque – Ex.P.1. As the signature on the cheque is admitted, a presumption has been drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. Said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Standard of proof for rebutting the said presumption is preponderance of probability. 4. The petitioner - accused in his reply to notice at Ex.C6 has taken up the defence as under: "My client denies each and every allegation as narrated at para No.2 of your legal notice. My client never issued alleged cheque of rupees 3,50,000/- towards the said liability for the said amount on month of October 2015 to your client. As on the date of cheque, no transaction was taken place between your client and my client in any manner. Your client has misused the cheque and wrongly presented only in order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20276 CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2019 to make unlawful gains against my client. Since, there is no legally enforceable debt covered under the cheque dated 15.03.2016. Hence, your client cannot file and maintain the case against my client on alleged cheque for the reasons assigned below. My client states that, my client never seen your client". 5. The petitioner - accused in the cross examination of P.W.1/complainant has taken up defence that he had given a cheque at Ex.P.1 to one C. Muniraju who is the brother-in-law of the respondent as security to the chit transaction. P.W.1 has denied the said suggestion put to him that C. Muniraju was doing chit transaction and that the petitioner - accused had given cheque-Ex.P.1 to said C. Muniraju as security for the said chit transaction. Therefore, the said defence of the petitioner has not been established. Therefore, the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act remained un-rebutted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent - complainant has not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20276 CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2019 established his capacity to lend the amount. The petitioner in his reply at Ex.C.6 has not taken any such contention that the respondent - complainant did not prove that he had capacity to lend money. 7. In view of the non-rebuttal of presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act it is to be held that cheque has been issued for discharge of debt/liability. 8. Considering the above aspects, the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any error in convicting the petitioner – accused for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and in imposition of sentence. In the result, Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKA/KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74