- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6415 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 233 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 232 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 233 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP No. 232/2018: BETWEEN: I.D. RUDREGOWDA S/O DEVEGOWDA A/A 60 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O IDAHALLI VILLAGE KANATI POST CHIKMAGALURU TALUK - 577 127. …PETITIONER (BY DR. J.S. HALASHETTI, ADV.) AND: B.B. ANNEGOWDA S/O BHADREGOWDA AGRICULTURIST R/O IDAHALLI VILLAGE - 577 127 KANATHI POST, CHIKMAGALUR TALUK. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IT ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 15.12.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.920/2013 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT SENTENCING THE PETITIONER TO PAY A FINE OR RS.3000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDER GO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE MONTHS AND FURTHER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.75,000/- TO THE COMPLAINANT, WHICH IS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU BY ITS ORDER DATED 01.02.2018 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.180/2016. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6415 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 233 of 2018 IN CRL.RP NO. 233/2018: BETWEEN: I.D. RUDREGOWDA S/O DEVEGOWDA A/A 60 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O IDAHALLI VILLAGE KANATI POST CHIKMAGALURU TALUK. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI DR. J.S. HALASHEETI, ADV.) AND: B.B. RAMEGOWDA S/O BHADREGOWDA NOW AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O IDAHALLI VILLAGE - 577 127 KANATHI POST CHIKMAGALUR TALUK. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IT ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 15.12.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1031/2013 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT SENTENCING THE PETITIONER TO PAY A FINE OR RS.3000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDER GO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE MONTHS AND FURTHER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.75,000/- TO THE COMPLAINANT, WHICH IS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU BY ITS ORDER DATED 01.02.2018 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.181/2016. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6415 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 233 of 2018 ORAL COMMON ORDER 1. The above captioned two criminal revision petitions, which are inter connected to each other, are heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The respondents in the above captioned two criminal revision petitions had initiated two separate proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') in C.C.No.920 of 2013 and C.C.No.1031 of 2013 before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru. It is the specific case of the respondents / complainants that, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹.75,000/- each from them and towards repayment of the said amount, he had issued the two cheques in question drawn on District Co- operative Bank Ltd. Aldur branch, Chikmagaluru District for a sum of ₹.75,000/- each in their favour. The said cheques were dishonored by the drawee bank with a shara "insufficient funds" and therefore, the complainant had got issued statutory legal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6415 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 233 of 2018 notice to the petitioner, which was duly served. In spite of service of notice, petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheques in question and therefore, the respondents had initiated two separate criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.920 of 2013 and C.C.No.1031 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner in both the cases for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in the Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 by the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru by two separate judgment and order dated 01.02.2018. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in these two revision petitions. 4. The complainants in both the cases in order to prove their case had examined themselves as PW.1 and also produced documents, which were marked as exhibits in both the cases. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and documents were also marked - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6415 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 233 of 2018 as exhibits. The accused / petitioner has not disputed the signature found in the cheques in question, which were marked as Ex.P1 in both the cases. It is also not in dispute that the cheques in question were drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained by him in District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Aldur branch, Chikmagaluru District. Therefore, a presumption arises against the petitioner that the cheques in question were issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt as provided under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of N.I. Act. Unless the said presumption is rebutted by putting forward a probable defence, accused is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. In the case on hand, the petitioner has taken a defence that he had a monetary transaction with the complainant in the year 2002 and these two cheques were issued as security for the said transaction. Subsequently, he had repaid the amount borrowed but the cheques were not returned and were misused by the complainants, who are brothers. Though a specific defence was taken that the cheques - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6415 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 233 of 2018 in question were issued in the year 2002 and the proceedings were initiated in the year 2013, the petitioner has failed to probabilise the said defence. Material witnesses like the officers of the bank were not examined in the present case on behalf of the defendant. DW2 is the brother-in-law of the accused / petitioner and this witness has stated that he does not know about the transaction between the accused and the complainant. Therefore, the defence raised by the accused was not probabilised and under the said circumstances, the Courts below had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the ground that petitioner had failed to put forward any probable defence. The law in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N.BEENA VS. MUNIYAPPAN & ANOTHER - (2001) 8 SCC 458. 6. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below. Even the order of sentence passed against the accused is just and proportionate. Under the circumstances, revision petitions lack merits. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6415 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 233 of 2018 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37