- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1464 OF 2022 BETWEEN: MR. K. SUDHIR B.S. S/O SHANTHARAMA AGED 39 YEARS R/AT SANTHOSH NAGAR 2ND CROSS, KUMAPALA SOMESHWARA KOTEKAR POST MANGALORE - 575 020 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. HARISH ALVA S/O LATE KITTANNA ALVA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT BARIKE HOUSE ULLAL BAIL ULLALA POST MANGALORE - 575 020 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 17.04.2021 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C. - V COURT, MANGALURU IN C.C.NO.443/2017 AND ETC. 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. Ganapathi Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Venkatesh Somareddy for the petitioner. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.443/2017 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.89/2021 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 Respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure alleging the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that accused and complainant had a loan transaction in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and towards the repayment, Cheque bearing No.880704 dated 06.09.2016 drawn on State Bank of India, Bantwala branch was issued, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. There was no compliance to the callings of legal notice and thus sought for action against the accused. 3.2 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore trial was held. 3.3 Complainant got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record five documents as against the same, accused got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record four documents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 3.4 Learned Trial Magistrate after considering the rival contentions of the parties, in a cumulative manner, convicted the accused inter alia of holding in paragraphs No.24 to 28 as under : 24. Further, from the cross examination of PW-1, it is clear that no where PW-1 has admitted anything which is favourable to the contentions raised by the accused. PW-1 has denied all the suggestion put to him by regarding issuance of alleged blank cheque and gold ornaments. 25. It is defence taken by the accused that he had issued blank signed cheque to the complainant and he has misused it. Inchoate Instrument- 'where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with law relating to negotiable instruments either wholly blank or having written thereon incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete the amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount. By virtue of aforesaid provision of law even blank signed inchoate instrument amounts to negotiable instrument and the person signing the same shall be liable upon such Instrument. Hence, even in the case on hand though a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 some accused might have issued a blank cheque, that itself cannot be a defence in his favour, in view of provisions of section 20 of NI Act. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of section 138 would be attracted. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards payment, the payee may fillup the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus still lies on accused to prove that cheque was not in discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence. Even a blank cheque voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under section 139 of the NI Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence, to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. 26. The doubts which are raised by the accused must be of such nature, if those doubts are If doubts are mere accepted that will go to the root of the case of the complainant, which are capable of uprooting the complainant's case in toto. doubts which are not sufficient to shake the case of the complainant, in such eventuality, the complainant as initial presumption is need not prove his case, drawn in his favour. 27. Bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such fact and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist....".But In the case on hand accused has not been able to bring on record any such evidence which would probablise her defence. 28. Therefore, the court is of considered opinion that complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, presumption is raised u/s 118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act. And accused is obliged to rebut the statutory presumption available to the complainant. the accused has failed to raise a probable defence, which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The defence raised by the accused remains as defense only and does not take the place of proof. Though the accused has tried to rebut the statutory presumption, he has failed in his attempt for the reasons discussed supra. In view of above discussion, I answer Point No. 1& 2 in the 'Affirmative'. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 3.5 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.89/2021. 3.6 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.21 to 24 as under: 21. There is an evidence of the complainant that cheque belongs to the accused. Cheque bears the signature of the accused. Accused not disputed his He also not offered any signature on the cheque. explanation, under what circumstances he parted with the cheque. As such this court proceeded to examine Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act as they provided The statute mandates that for statutory presumption. once the signature of accused on the cheque is established then the 'reverse onus' clause become operative. In such a situation the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513 in the case of Kumar Exports v/s Sharma Carpets and another decision of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 in the case of Basalingappa v/s Mudibasappa held that presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act are rebuttable presumptions. It is further held that rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Something probable has to be brought on record. In this case the accused has not elicited any admissions from the mouth of complainant nor rebut the presumptions available to the complainant as provided under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The bare denial of passing of consideration would not aid the case of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that a probable defence needs to be raised which must meet the standard of 'preponderance of probability', and not mere possibility. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh v/s Mukesh Kumar held that even a blank cheque leaf. voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that cheque was not issued in discharge of debt. 24. Ex.P1 is the cheque belongs to the account of the accused. Accused never denied his signature on cheque marked at Ex P1. Such being the case the defence raised by the accused in the considered opinion of this court not inspire confidence or meet the standard of 'preponderance of probability'. In the absence of any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 other relevant evidence to disprove or to rebut the presumption available to the complainant, the accused in the opinion of this court has not discharged his onus in proving his contention. The view of this court is fortified by the three bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC ON LINE SC 75 in the case of M/s. Kalamani Tex and another v/s B.Balasubramanian. As such the point No.1 taken up for consideration is held in affirmative and point No.2 taken up for consideration is held in Negative. 4. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court. 5. Sri. Ganpathi Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record especially the oral testimony of DW1 coupled with the probative value of Exhibits D1 to D4 and thus sought for allowing the revision. 6. Respondent served with the notice of the revision petition remained absent. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 7. Thus, in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the defence taken by the accused is that he issued blank signed cheques to the complainant and the same was mis-utilized by the complainant. 9. If it is so, no normal prudent person would keep quiet without taking action against the complainant especially after he engaging the services of an advocate before the Trial Magistrate. 10. Non taking any action against the complainant in this regard exposes the hollowness in the defence taken by the accused, which has been rightly appreciated by Trial Magistrate and re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court as referred to supra in detail. 11. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional powers, and also following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20422 CRL.RP No. 1464 of 2022 Court in the case of SANJABIJ TARI VS. KISHORE S BORCAR AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2069, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out the any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by both the Courts. 12. Accordingly, following order: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32