- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 97 OF 2023 BETWEEN: RAMESH S/O LATE R.J. DIBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O LAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DIST. 572 113. &PETITIONER (BY SRI MANJUNATH T.M, ADV.) AND: CHIKKANNA S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT LAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DIST - 572 113. &RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.41/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AGAINST THIS PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set- aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.308/2017 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira dated 11.07.2022 and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.41/2022 by the Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur dated 28.11.2022. 2. Heard. 3. The respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act' for short), in CC No.308/2017 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira. In the said proceedings, the Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2,10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC No.308/2017 has been confirmed in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023 Crl.A.No.41/2022 by the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that according to respondent/complainant, petitioner, who is his acquaintance, had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question bearing No.812073 drawn on Canara Bank, Baraguru Branch was issued in his favour. The said cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant had got issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 02.11.2016 and in spite of service of the said notice, petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the said cheuqe in question. It is under these circumstances, respondent/complainant had initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023 5. In support of his case, respondent/complainant has examined himself as PW1 and got marked seven documents as Ex.P1 to P7. The signature of the petitioner in the cheque in question at Ex.P1 is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that Ex.P1 was drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained by him in Canara Bank, Baraguru Branch, Tumkur. Therefore, a presumption arises against petitioner under Section 139 of the N. I. Act and unless, he rebuts the same by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. 6. According to the petitioner, there was a chit transaction between the respondent and his father and towards security of the chit transaction, the cheque in question was issued by him. In support of his defence, petitioner has not produced any material before the Trial Court. It is trite that defence put forward by the accused should be probable and not plausible so as to rebut the presumption that arises against the accused. No documentary evidence is produced by the petitioner in support of the defence set-up by him. It is under these circumstances, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023 the Trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Even the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court is just and appropriate. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. SD/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24