- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10088 CRL.RP No. 98 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 98 OF 2020 BETWEEN: M/S SRS AGENCIES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR JAGADISH M.S. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT SRIGANDHANAGAR NEAR KONIKA GARDEN BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAHUL RAJKUMAR, ADV.) AND: MR. LAKSHMANACHARI W/O VENKATACHARI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.108/109 SAPATHAGIRI BUILDING, 2ND FLORO MUTHURAYASWAMY LAYOUT, NEW PNT COLONY SUNKADAKATTE MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURUPIN - 560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY G.M. ANANDA, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND IMPOSITION OF FINE, DATED 04.05.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 2ND A.C.M., BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.24113/2016 AND IN CRL.A.NO.839/2017 CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT IN THE ABOVE CASE ORDER DATED 15.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU TO IT IS ANNEXED A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10088 CRL.RP No. 98 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.05.2017 passed in CC.No.24113/2016 by the Court of XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and the judgment and order dated 15.03.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.839/2017 passed by the Court of LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in CC.No.24113/2016. 4. It is the case of the respondent-complainant that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from him in the year 2016 and towards repayment of the said amount, he had issued the cheque in question bearing No.945408 dated 06.09.2016 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sunkadakatte - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10088 CRL.RP No. 98 of 2020 Branch, Bengaluru, and the said cheque when presented for realization was dishonoured with a shara 'account closed'. The legal notice that was got issued on behalf of the respondent had returned with a shara 'party refused'. It is under these circumstances, respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 5. In the said proceedings, petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,05,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC.No.24113/2016 was confirmed by the Court of LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.839/2017 vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2019. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 6. The respondent-complainant in order to substantiate his case before the Trial Court, had examined himself as PW-1 and got marked nine documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. Ex.P-1 is the cheque in question and the signature of the petitioner found in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10088 CRL.RP No. 98 of 2020 the said cheque is marked as Ex.P-1(a). Ex.P-8 is the loan agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Petitioner has not disputed his signature found in Ex.P-1, nor has he disputed that the cheque in question was drawn on the bank account maintained by him in Indian Overseas Bank, Sunkadakatte Branch, Bengaluru. Therefore, a presumption arose against him that the cheque in question was issued towards legally recoverable debt as provided under Sections 139 read with 118 of the N.I.Act. Unless the said presumption is rebutted in accordance with law by putting forward a probable defence, petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 7. Perusal of Ex.P-8 - loan agreement would go to show that the petitioner had undertaken to repay the amount of Rs.5 lakhs borrowed by him and Ex.P-9 is the passbook of the complainant which would go to show that in the month of January 2016, he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the bank and according to him, the said amount was handed over to the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10088 CRL.RP No. 98 of 2020 8. The respondent has raised a defence that he was the tenant of the complainant and the cheque in question along with other three cheques which were signed by him were handed over as security for the purpose of taking the premises on lease. 9. The material on record would go to show that the other three cheques are dated 10.08.2012, 13.08.2012 & 05.09.2012 and were drawn totally for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-. Ex.D-1 is the rental agreement of the premises which was taken on lease by the respondent. Issuance of the aforesaid three cheques for a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- is mentioned in the said agreement and in addition to the amount covered under the said cheques, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was also paid in cash by the petitioner to the complainant when taking the premises on lease. The present cheque is not the subject matter of Ex.D-1. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that even the present cheque was issued under Ex.D-1 cannot be accepted. The defence put forward by the petitioner was, therefore, not probablized by him before the Trial Court, and it is under these circumstances, the Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10088 CRL.RP No. 98 of 2020 10. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of conviction impugned in this revision petition which calls for interference. Even the order of sentence imposed by the courts below is just and proportionate. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this revision petition lacks merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK