- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12802 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 758 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: LAXMINARAYANA HOLLA S/O MR. SHESHAPPAYYA HOLLA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O MARIKAPU VARKADI VILLAGE AND POST KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 323. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AADEESH P, ADV., FOR SRI SACHIN B.S, ADV.) AND: MR. SRIKANTH SALIAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O T.K. SUVARNA R/A GUDDI KOPLA IDYA VILLAGE, SURATHKAL MANGALURU - 575 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PAVAN H.S, ADV., FOR SRI ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.41/2017 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING JUDGMENT OF CONVCITION AND SENTENCE DATED 30.01.2017 IN C.C.NO.5143/2012 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.(IV COURT), MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AS PER DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW CRL.A.NO.41/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12802 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri Aadeesh P, for Sri Sachin B.S, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Pavan H S, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused, in C.C.No.5143 of 2012 who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short, 'N.I. Act') which is affirmed in Crl.A.No.41 of 2017 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are asunder: In respect of dishonored cheque issued by the accused, a complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12802 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2020 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities recorded the evidence of the parties and on cumulative analysis of the material evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, imposed ₹.2,62,000/- as the fine amount of which a sum of ₹.2,60,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance amount of ₹.2,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2017. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 21.08.2020, dismissed the appeal of the accused. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 7. Sri Aadeesh P. learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds uttered in the revision petition would contend that the cheque in question was given - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12802 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2020 to Sri Venkatramana Mayya, which has been misused by the complainant. Thus, there is no legally recoverable debt under Ex.P1 and hence, sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 10. Admittedly, cheque is dishonoured with an endorsement "Account closed". Legal notice issued is replied by the accused stating that there was no legally recoverable debt. 11. In order to prove the case of the parties, complainant got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record six documents including the passbook. As against the same, accused has placed eight documents, which are exhibited and marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D8. In respect of yet another cheque said to have been issued by the accused in favour of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12802 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2020 Venkataramana Mayya, there was a Criminal case in C.C.No.1541 of 2010 and those documents were placed on record. 12. Admittedly, even after accused came to know that there is a misuse of cheque, no positive action has been taken by the accused by filing a criminal complaint to the jurisdictional Police or before the Magistrate to establish that cheque in fact was issued to Sri Venkataramana Mayya. 13. Accused was duty bound to examine Sri Venkataramana Mayya and establish that Venkataramana Mayya and complainant have joined their hands in deceiving the accused. No such attempt is made especially, when accused had the services of an advocate at the time of issuing the reply notice itself. 14. When once the cheque is admitted and signature found therein is also admitted, complainant enjoys the presumption as is contemplated under Section 139 of the N.I Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12802 CRL.RP No. 758 of 2020 15. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. In the case on hand, the accused placed rebuttable evidence on record through his oral testimony and through the documents that has been placed on record which is the proceedings between Venkatramana Mayya and accused. However, said evidence is not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is just and proper, which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 16. As such, there is no merit in this revision petition. 17. Hence, following :- ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22