- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10929 CRL.RP No. 713 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 713 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI GOVIND V. JATHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE VIBHAKAR JATHAR PROPRIETOR OF M/S SRI GANESH TRADERS, NO.B-91 IST STAGE, 2ND CROSS PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BANGALORE - 560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADV., FOR SRI PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADV.) AND: SRI SRICHAND MURALIDHAR S/O MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUOT 74 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S TOTLANI ENTERPRISES NO.12 & 13, "SRI SADAN" NANJAPPA ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 27 REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER MR. VIKRAM CHUGH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SATISH M.G, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2019, PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CCH-61 IN CRI.A.NO.1438/2017 AND THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2017 IN C.C.NO.24740/2016 FROM THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XV A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10929 CRL.RP No. 713 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.09.2017 passed in CC.No.24740/2016 by the Court of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and the judgment and order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Court of LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.1438/2017. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The 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.24740/2016. 4. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that petitioner who is the proprietor of the firm known as M/s. Ganesh Traders, Bengaluru, was acquainted to him and for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10929 CRL.RP No. 713 of 2019 purpose of his business, he had taken hand loan from him on 24.04.2015. Towards payment of the amount due, he had issued the cheques in question for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and when the said cheques were presented for realization, the same were dishonoured by the drawee bank with a shara ‘funds insufficient’. The legal notice that was thereafter got issued on behalf of the respondent was served on the petitioner who had issued a reply to the same. Since the petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question inspite of service of notice, respondent had initiated proceedings for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 5. In the said proceedings, on behalf of the complainant, his power of attorney was examined as PW-1 and ten documents were produced and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-10. On behalf of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2 lakhs and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10929 CRL.RP No. 713 of 2019 said judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.24740/2016 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.1438/2017 by the Appellate Court. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the petitioner has not disputed the signature in the cheques in question which are marked as Exs.P-2 & P-3. The signature of the petitioner is marked as Exs.P-2(a) & P-3(a). It is also not in dispute that the cheques in question were drawn on the bank account of the petitioner which was maintained by him in Vijaya Bank, Shanthinagar Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheques were dishonoured by the drawee bank when presented for realization for the reason that ‘funds were insufficient’ in the bank account of the petitioner. The legal notice thereafter got issued on behalf of the respondent was served on the petitioner. Under the circumstances, a presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Sections 139 read with 118 of N.I.Act and unless, the petitioner successfully rebuts the same by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10929 CRL.RP No. 713 of 2019 7. In the present case, the transaction between the parties is admitted. According to the petitioner, he had repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.10 lakhs borrowed from the respondent and the cheques in question which were issued towards security were misused by the respondent for the purpose of initiating the present proceedings against him. However, no material was placed on record by the petitioner before the court to show that he had repaid the loan amount of Rs.10 lakhs borrowed by him from the respondent. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has held that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him, and accordingly has convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 8. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner by the courts below is just and proportionate, which does not call for interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10929 CRL.RP No. 713 of 2019 Under the circumstances, I find no good ground to entertain this criminal revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. 9. Petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine amount. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59