- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35775 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 714 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI L JANARDHANA, S/O LATE LAKKAIAH,AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HEAD MASTER,GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,KOGALURU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571602. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K. N. CHANDRASHEKARA, S/O PATEL NINGEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT A S LALITHA, W/O LATE K N CHANDRASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC-HOUSE WIFE, 1(b) SRI PRADEEP K C, S/O LATE K N CHANDRASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC - BUSINESS, 1(c) SRI PRASHANTH K C, S/O LATE K N Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35775 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2018 CHANDRASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC - BUSINESS, 1(d) SRI PRAMOD K C, S/O LATE K N CHNADRASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC - BUSINESS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KANTENAHALLI EXTENSION, ARAKESHWARA NAGARA, K R NAGARA TOWN, MYSURU - 571602. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR M RAVOOR, ADV. FOR R1(A TO D)) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.130/2016 DATED 25.10.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 30.06.2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KRISHNARAJANAGAR IN C.C.NO.47/2016 THAT THE PETITIONER TO PAY A FINE OF RS.75,000/- IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35775 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2018 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'Act, 1881'). 2. Petitioner is convicted as the Court held that the cheque for Rs.60,000/- issued in favour of the respondent- complainant was towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The Trial Court imposed fine of Rs.75,000/- out of which Rs.70,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be defrayed towards the expenses of the State. 3. The Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the transaction is not established and the blank signed cheque of the petitioner is misused by the complainant. The Trial Court found that the presumption in favour of the complainant/respondent is not rebutted by leading evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35775 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2018 5. The Appellate Court also held that the presumption is not rebutted by the accused. 6. This Court has perused the records. 7. Accused has not led any evidence. Cheque is for Rs.60,000/-. Presumption under Section 139 of the Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant is not rebutted by adducing acceptable evidence. The signature on the cheque is not in dispute. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting the accused. 8. It is noticed that the original complainant/respondent is no more and is survived by four legal representatives and they have been brought on record. 9. It is also noticed that the entire amount is deposited before the Trial Court. The Trial Court had imposed six months imprisonment in case of default. 10. Since the entire amount is deposited, there is no question of petitioner undergoing imprisonment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35775 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2018 11. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Petition is dismissed. (ii) Amount in deposit shall be released in favour of respondent No.1(a) (iii) Accused is acquitted of charges. (iv) Bail bond stands cancelled. (v) It is noticed that amount in deposit before the Trial Court is not kept in Fixed Deposit after it is deposited by the petitioner/accused pursuant to the interim order passed by the appellate Court or the High Court. Sitting in this jurisdiction this Court has noticed number of such instances. (vi) After the amount is deposited, pursuant to the interim order, many a times it takes considerable time for disposal of the Appeals and Criminal Revision Petitions. In such situations, the amount in deposit before the Trial Court or the Appellate Court as the case may be will not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35775 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2018 earn interest unless said amount is deposited in interest earning accounts. (vii) It will be in the interest of both parties that such amount deposited pursuant to the interim order passed by the Appellate Court or the High Court, is kept in interest earning deposit, unless the Court order directs otherwise. (viii) Registrar - Judicial shall bring it to the kind notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate action/order in this regard. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15