- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 681 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 662 OF 2023 IN CRL.RP No. 681/2023: BETWEEN: MR. B. HAMEED MOHAMMED S/O LATE MR B MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO 1-66, NATEKAL UNIVERSITY ROAD, ASSAIGOLI POST MANGALURU TALUK - 574 199. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SACHIN B.S, ADV.) AND: MR. J. ASHPAK HUSSAIN S/O MR ISMAIL SAAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A SAHANA ASHMA COMPOUND DOOR NO.3-113C SRI SIDDI VINAYAKA CROSS ROAD POST PERMANNUR THOKKOTTU MANGALURU TALUK - 574 199. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADV., FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.89/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.03.2016 IN Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 C.C.NO.4981/2012 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C (IV COURT) AT MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW CRL.A.NO.89/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR. IN CRL.RP NO. 662/2023: BETWEEN: MR. B. HAMEED MOHAMMED S/O LATE MR B MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1-66, NATEKAL UNIVERSITY ROAD, ASSAIGOLI POST MANGALURU TALUK - 574 199. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SACHIN B.S, ADV.) AND: MR. J. ASHPAK HUSSAIN S/O MR ISMAIL SAAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A SAHANA ASHMA COMPOUND DOOR NO.3-113C SRI SIDDI VINAYAKA CROSS ROAD POST PERMANNUR THOKKOTTU MANGALURU TALUK - 574 199. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADV., FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2020 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.90 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSINS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.03.2016 IN C.C.NO.47 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF JMFC (IV COURT) AT MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.90 OF 2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. These two criminal revision petitions arise out of the common judgment passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court between the same parties, and therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated two separate proceedings against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in CC.No.4981/2012 and CC.No.47/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 4. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner had borrowed hand loan of Rs.20 lakhs from him on 16.08.2011 and towards repayment of the said amount, he had issued four separate cheques for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs drawn in favour of the respondent on Syndicate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 Bank, Bejai, Mangaluru, bearing Nos.895318, 895319, 895320 and 895321. The said cheques on presentation for realization were dishonoured by the drawee bank. In respect of the cheques bearing Nos.895318 & 895319 which dishonoured, respondent-complainant had got issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 22.05.2012 and in respect of the other two cheques, legal notice was got issued on 25.06.2012. Inspite of service of two statutory legal notices issued, the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheques in question which was claimed under the aforesaid two legal notices. It is under these circumstances, two separate proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in CC.No.4981/2012 and CC.No.47/2015. 5. Since the petitioner had claimed to be tried in both the cases, respondent had examined himself as PW-1 before the Trial Court and in CC.No.4981/2012 he had got - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 marked 12 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-12 and in CC.No.47/2015, he had got marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. On behalf of the defence, petitioner had got himself examined as DW-1 in both the cases and had got marked six documents as Exs.D-1 to D-6. 6. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and also appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in both the cases and had sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.10,05,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on 31.03.2016 in CC.No.4981/2012 and CC.No.47/2016 was confirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2020 in Crl.A.No.89/2016 & Crl.A.No.90/2016. It is under these circumstances, the accused is before this Court in these two revision petitions. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 7. It is the specific case of the complainant that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from him and towards repayment of the said amount four separate cheques for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs each was drawn in his favour which were dishonoured by the drawee bank when presented for realization. Undisputedly, the statutory legal notice issued to the petitioner on behalf of the respondent was served on the petitioner and inspite of service of the said notice, amount covered under the cheques in question was not repaid by the petitioner. The signature of the petitioner found in the cheques in question are not in dispute and it is also not disputed that the said cheques were drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained in Syndicate Bank, Bejai, Mangaluru. 8. The defence set up by the petitioner is that he had not borrowed any amount from the respondent nor he had issued the cheques in question towards repayment of the amount borrowed by him. The cheques in question were lost by him in the year 2012 when he had gone to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 Chitradurga along with Ansaf Abdul Khadar and the complainant herein. The said cheques were subsequently misused by the complainant. To substantiate the said defence, petitioner has not produced any oral or documentary evidence before the Trial Court nor has he examined the aforesaid Ansaf Abdul Khadar before the Trial Court. 9. It has come on record that after the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, he had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the bank account of the respondent and his brother-in-law - Siddique had deposited totally a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the bank account of the respondent on behalf of the petitioner. Exs.P-12 & P-13 reflects the deposit of the aforesaid amount to the bank account of the respondent. These entries were not disputed by the petitioner, and thereby he had virtually admitted payment of partial amount claimed by the respondent during the pendency of the cases. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 10. The material on record would go to show that PW-1 was earlier employed in Doha at Qatar and he had sufficient means to pay the amount of Rs.20 lakhs to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has failed to put forward any probable defence before the Trial Court, in view of the presumption that arose against him which stood unrebutted, the Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in both the cases i.e., CC.No.4981/2012 & CC.No.47/2015. 11. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has confirmed the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The amount of Rs.8,50,000/- which was paid by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court has been given set off by the Trial Court. The order of sentence passed by the courts below is also just and proportionate. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8888 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2023 C/W CRL.RP No. 662 of 2023 common judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. Accordingly, the following order: 12. Criminal revision petitions are dismissed. The amount deposited by the petitioner before the Trial Court or the Appellate Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-complainant. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK