- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9796 CRL.RP No. 960 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 960 OF 2016 (-) BETWEEN: 1. DAMODHAR S/O RAMA SHERIGAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT RAMA NIVAS, BALLAL NAGAR, MARPALLI, KORANGAPADI, UDUPI DISTRICT-574201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P N HEGDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SURESH NAIK S/O.CHANDRAYYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, P/AT TEA POINT, NEAR SRD, PRES CORNER, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT-574201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HARISH GANAPATHY., ADVOCATE) CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2016 PASSED BY PRL. S.J., UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.76/2015 AND THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC UDUPI IN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9796 CRL.RP No. 960 of 2016 C.C.NO.2037/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. 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 Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.2037/2012 dated 04.11.2015 by the Court of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC which was confirmed by the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.76/2015 dated 28.05.2016 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District at Udupi. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.2037/2012. In the said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9796 CRL.RP No. 960 of 2016 proceedings, the Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay Rs.1,55,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC No. 2037/2012 was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.76/2015 by judgment and order dated 28.05.2016. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner has probabilised the defence put forward by him and therefore, the Courts below are not justified in convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits that during the course of cross-examination of PW.1, his admission supports the defence taken by the petitioner. He accordingly prays to allow the petition. 5. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court's below and prays to dismiss the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9796 CRL.RP No. 960 of 2016 6. According to the complainant, petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him as a hand loan in the first week of January, 2012 and towards repayment of the said amount he had issued the check in question bearing No.159030 dated 14.08.2012 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Manipal SIBM Branch, Udupi District for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the respondent. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara 'funds insufficient'. The statutory notice that was got issued on behalf of the respondent was duly served on the petitioner and in spite of the same, he had neither repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question nor had issued any reply to the legal notice. It is under these circumstances, proceedings was initiated against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. The complainant has examined himself as PW.1 and had got marked four documents as Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P.4(a). Exhibit P.1 is the cheque in question and Exhibit P.1(a) is the signature of the accused/petitioner. The said signature has not been disputed by the petitioner nor he has disputed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9796 CRL.RP No. 960 of 2016 that the cheque was drawn on the bank account maintained by him in Syndicate Bank, Manipal Branch, Udupi District. Therefore, a presumption arises against him as provided under Section 139 r/w Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act and unless, the said presumption is rebutted by putting forward a probable defence, petitioner is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. In the present case, it is the specific defence of the petitioner that the cheque in question and another cheque was signed and handed over by him to one Jagadeesh, who was a police constable from whom he had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/-. According to the petitioner, even though he had repaid the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the said Jagadeesh, the aforesaid two cheques were not returned by him and one of the cheque was misused by the said Jagadeesh through the respondent herein. As stated earlier, the signature found in the cheque in question has not been disputed by the petitioner. The cheque was drawn in the name of the respondent. During the course of his examination-in-chief, petitioner who has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9796 CRL.RP No. 960 of 2016 examined himself as DW.1 has not disputed his handwriting found in the cheque in question. During the course of cross- examination of PW.1, he has stated that petitioner had written the cheque and handed over the same to him. If the handwriting found in the cheque in question belongs to the petitioner, then the very defence taken by the petitioner that he had handed over a blank signed cheque to the aforesaid Jagadeesh, fails. The petitioner has also not made any attempt to examine the aforesaid Jagadeesh before the trial Court. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court having appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter have rightly convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the petitioner had failed to successfully rebut the presumption that arose against him as aforesaid. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and proportionate and does not call for any interference. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this revision petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9796 CRL.RP No. 960 of 2016 Amount deposited by the petitioner, if any, is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52