- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1100 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI R. DHANRAJ S/O. LATE K. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.602 HERITAGE APARTMENTS GANDHINAGAR, KODIALBAIL POST MANGALURU-575 003. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O. B.V. HEGDE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT KAIRANNA BUILDING NEAR JYOTHI TALKIES, BALMATTA MANGALURU-575 002. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. SAMEEKSHA T.R., ADVOCATE, FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI) * * * THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 20-6-2022 MADE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.407 OF 2015 BY THE COURT OF J.M.F.C. (V COURT), MANGALURU, AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17-6-2023 MADE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.115 OF 2022 BY THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT D.K., MANGALURU, AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKSHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Ms. Sameeksha T.R., learned counsel for Sri Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner-accused has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.') praying to set-aside the judgment dated 17-7-2023 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2022 and also to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 20-6-2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-V Court, Mangaluru, D.K. (for short, ‘trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.407 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I. Act’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant. 4. The brief facts of the complainant's case are as under: The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as hand loan from the complainant. The complainant paid the said amount to the accused through his wife’s cheque bearing Nos.887467 and 887468 drawn on her account held with Saraswath Cooperative Bank, Mannagudda Branch, Mangaluru, for Rs.1,50,000/ each. The accused encashed those two cheques on 29-3-2012 and 3-4-2012, respectively. The accused had promised to repay the said amount within six months, but failed to repay the amount as promised. After repeated requests and demands from the complainant, the accused issued cheque bearing No.325509 dated 18-11-2014 drawn on his account held with Corporation Bank, Commercial and Personal Banking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 Branch, Kodialbail, Mangaluru, for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was presented to the complainant’s Bank and the same has returned dishonoured on the ground payment stopped by the drawer vide Memo dated 31-12-2014. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 18-1-2015 calling upon the accused to pay the amount due under the cheque, but the accused neither replied to the said legal notice, nor paid the amount. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. After institution of the complaint, the trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., secured the presence of the accused and recorded his plea. 6. The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and relied upon the documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The accused was examined as DW1, but no documents were marked on his behalf. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 7. After hearing the complainant and the accused, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,55,000/-. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2022. In turn, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque in question was issued as collateral security of the loan transaction and the complaint does not disclose the exact date of the hand loan availed by the accused. He further contended that since the wife of the complainant did not return the cheque after clearing the entire loan transaction, the accused issued instructions to his Bank for stopping the payment. Further, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 complainant has failed to prove the ingredients that the debt in question was legally recoverable debt and the trial Court has wrongly raised presumption without noticing that the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act does not attract at all. On all these grounds, she prays to allow the revision petition. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the accused has admitted issuance of cheque and his signature found in Ex.P1. He also admitted the transaction in question. Hence, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thus, she prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. On perusal of the complaint, oral testimony of PW1 and the documents relied upon by the complainant, it appears that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant and in consideration thereof, he issued Ex.P1-cheque for a sum of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Commercial and Personal Banking Branch, Kodialbail, Mangaluru, and when the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, the same was returned as "payment stopped". Hence, the complainant issued legal notice vide Ex.P3 calling upon the accused to pay the amount due under the cheque and in spite of issuance of legal notice, the accused neither replied to the legal notice, nor paid the due amount. 12. The complainant has produced the cheque in question as per Ex.P1, it bears the signature of the accused as per Ex.P1(a), Ex.P2 is the Bank endorsement, Ex.P3 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.P4 is the postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the postal cover and Ex.P6 is the Pass Book. The accused has admitted issuance of Ex.P1-cheque and his signature on the cheque. However, the accused has contended that Ex.P1 was issued to the wife of the complainant as collateral security of the loan transaction and thereby, the accused denied the transaction in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 manner stated by the complainant. Therefore, the accused has disputed the transaction with the complainant and service of notice upon him. 13. As per the provisions of N.I. Act, once a cheque is signed and handed over to the complainant by the accused, it would attract presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act in the absence of any contra evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. 14. So far as service of notice upon the accused is concerned, the complainant has furnished Ex.P3-legal notice, Ex.P4-postal receipt and Ex.P5-postal cover. It shows that the complainant got issued legal notice and the same was returned as 'unserved'. A perusal of Ex.P5(a) clearly demonstrates that the notice was inside a postal cover, wherein the complainant called upon the accused to pay the due amount. Now, the accused denied the service of notice. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 15. As per the presumption available under Section 11 of the Post and Telegraph Act, 1901, if any parcel is addressed to a particular addressee, it shall be deemed that, the parcel sent to the addressee is served on him. Now, in the present case, the complainant sent legal notice vide Ex.P3 to show that he issued the said notice soon after dishonour of the cheque. Therefore, under Ex.P3, the complainant called upon the accused to pay the amount due under the cheque. Contrary to this evidence, the accused has not placed any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the complainant has complied with the legal requirements of Section 138 of N.I. Act with regards to issuance of the legal notice on the accused. 16. Now, the burden shifts on the accused to disprove the case of the complainant, but the accused has not placed any material to show that the notice was not issued to him. 17. As per the contention of the accused, the cheque was not issued for legally enforceable debt. On the other - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 hand, according to the complainant, the cheque was issued to the wife of the complainant as collateral security of the loan transaction. On the contrary, the accused has not placed any contra evidence to disbelieve the case of the complainant. 18. Whenever execution of the negotiable instruments is admitted, then, the Court may draw presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as under: "118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.— Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:— (a) of consideration—that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date—that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 (c) as to time of acceptance—that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity; (d) as to time of transfer—that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity; (e) as to order of indorsements—that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon; (f) as to stamps—that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; (g) that holder is a holder in due course—that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him." - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 19. If the cheque was issued as collateral security in relation to other transactions, it shall be construed that the same was issued towards legally enforceable debt or liability. There is a presumption that negotiable instruments is supported by consideration and the cheque was issued in connection with discharge of liability. 20. In the present case, the Bank transactions, i.e. Ex.P6-Pass Book clearly demonstrates that on two occasions, the complainant lent loan to the accused for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each, in all, Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, the complainant has proved that on the relevant date, he lent money to the accused and in consideration thereof, the accused issued Ex.P1-cheque in favour of the complainant. Further, the accused has not placed any material before the Court to prove under which circumstance, he issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30600 CRL.RP No. 1100 of 2023 the trial Court. Hence, no interference is called for in this matter and there is no merit in the petition. 21. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main revision petition, pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28