- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10506 CRL.RP No. 135 of 2021 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. 135 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI VAZEER AHAMED S/O.NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.472/A, 6TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 047. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARANADEEP., AMICUS CURIAE) AND: SRI G. VENKATAPPA S/O. GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.1, LALBHAG SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGARA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. K. VENKATACHALAPATHI., ADVOCATE(ABSENT)) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.1451/2016 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AND JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE XVI ACMM, BANGALORE IN Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10506 CRL.RP No. 135 of 2021 C.C.NO.31872/2014 DATED 11.11.2016, BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Accused is before this Court in revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence passed in CC.No.31872/2014 dated 11.11.2016 by the Court of XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City and the Judgment and Order passed in Crl.A.No.1451/2016 dated 25.06.2020 by the Court of LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri. Sharanadeep, on behalf of the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 3. The respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'The NI Act') - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10506 CRL.RP No. 135 of 2021 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.31872/2014. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash and towards repayment of the said amount, he had issued the cheque in question bearing No.430852 dated 30.10.2013 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of respondent. On presentation the said cheque for realization the same was dishonoured by the dawee Bank with the shara "Insufficient Funds". The legal notice that was got issued on behalf of the complainant thereafter was duly served on the petitioner and inspite of the same, the petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the said cheque. It is under these circumstances the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.31872/2014 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. In the said case the trial Court had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and had sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.4,50,000/- and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10506 CRL.RP No. 135 of 2021 in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was confirmed in Crl.A.No.1451/2016 by judgment and order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the Court of LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. It is under these circumstances the petitioner is before this court. 5. Learned amicus Curiae, having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, the defense raised by the petitioner was not properly appreciated by the Court's below. The respondent has failed to prove his capacity to lend a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner. The Court's below were therefore not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the complainant in order to substantiate his case had got examined himself as PW.1 before the trial Court and also got - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10506 CRL.RP No. 135 of 2021 marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint during the course of his examination in chief before the trial Court. Nothing material has been elicited by the defense during the course of cross-examination of PW1. Ex.P1 is the original cheque issued by the petitioner and Ex.P1(a) is his signature on the cheque. The petitioner has not disputed his signature on Ex.P1 nor has he disputed that the said cheque was drawn on the bank account maintained by him in Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden Branch, Bengaluru. Therefore, the presumption arises as against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the NI Act, and unless the said presumption is rebutted by putting forward a probable defence the petitioner is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 7. In the present case, undisputedly, the legal notice issued to the petitioner on behalf of the respondent was duly served and in spite of the same, no reply was issued by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10506 CRL.RP No. 135 of 2021 petitioner, nor the amount covered under the cheque in question was paid. 8. The petitioner has taken a defense before the trial Court, that the cheque in question was issued by him to the respondent during the course of chit transaction and not towards repayment of the amount borrowed by him. According to the petitioner, altogether he had issued 12 cheques for the purpose of security of the chit transaction between the parties. However, no documentary evidence was placed before the trial Court in support of the defense. Even the bank account statement of the petitioner was not produced before the trial Court. It is under these circumstances that the trial Court has held that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him and accordingly had convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court. Even the order of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10506 CRL.RP No. 135 of 2021 sentence passed by the courts below is just and proportionate and the same does not call for any interference. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER i) Criminal revision petition is dismissed. ii) The services of Amicus Curiae is placed on record and his fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousands only). iii) Amount deposited by petitioner, if any, is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26