- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 851 OF 2025 BETWEEN: D.C. GANAPATHY S/O CHANGAPPA D.B AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF SRI VEERABHADHRA SWAMY TOURS AND TRAVELS MADEGOWDA BUILDING NEAR EAGLE BAKERY CIRCLE T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 058 ALSO R/AT NO.501, C/O SHIVA RAO 3RD DIVISION MAIN NEAR GANGADARESHWARA TEMPLE BHUVANESHWARINAGAR T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 057. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASANNA D.P, ADV.) AND: SRI V.G. NARASIMHAMURTHY @ V.G.N. MURTHY S/O S GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.44, 25TH CROSS BAGALAGUNTE BENGALURU - 560 073. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.969/2023 DATED 02.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH- 69) AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH FINE RENDERED BY THE VII ADDL S(J) ACMM AND MACT (SCCH-9) BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.25700/2015 DATED 06.07.2023 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF NI ACT. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.25700 for 2015 by the Court of Addl. Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru dated 06.07.2023 and the judgment and order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.969/2023 by the Court of LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 3. Respondent, who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court. 4. Respondent / complainant had initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') before the Court of Addl. Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 C.C.No.25700 of 2015. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner, who is his acquaintance had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from him, which was paid by him, as follows. a. Rs.5,00,000/- was paid vide cheque dated 25.02.2014 bearing no.822320 is drawn on Karnataka Bank, Hesaraghatta Branch, Bengaluru. b. Rs.1,00,000/- was paid vide cheque dated 05.03.2014 bearing No.822322 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Hesaraghatta Branch, Bengaluru. 5. It is the case of the respondent / complainant that towards repayment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,00,000/- borrowed by the petitioner, he had issued the cheque in question bearing No.556744 dated 23.09.2015 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Dasarahalli branch, Bengaluru in favour of the respondent / complainant and the said cheque, when presented for realisation, was dishonoured by the drawee bank.Even after service of the statutory legal notice on the petitioner, since the petitioner had failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque in question, the respondent had initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner, who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 him in C.C.No.25700 of 2015 had claimed to be tried. Therefore, to substantiate his case, respondent / complainant had examined himself as PW1 and got marked eight documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of defence, three witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and ten documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D10. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act vide the judgment and order dated 06.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.25700 of 2015 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- to the respondent / complainant. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.969 of 2023 by the Court of LXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City vide judgment and order dated 02.04.2025. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 has not received any amount from the respondent / complainant as alleged or otherwise. He submits that, signatures found in the back side of cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 does not belong to the petitioner. The FSL report with regard to the aforesaid signatures has not been appreciated by the Courts below. Respondent / complainant had failed to prove the transaction. The evidence of DW2 and DW3 would clearly go to show that amount covered under the cheques at Ex.D9 and D10 were not transferred to the bank account of the petitioner and on the other hand, they were withdrawn across the cash counter. He accordingly prays to allow the petition. 7. Respondent / complainant in order to substantiate his case had examined himself as PW1 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. According to PW1, he had paid amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner vide two separate cheques dated 25.02.2014 and 05.03.2014 drawn for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. The said cheques were summoned by the petitioner and were got marked through DW2, the Manager of the Karnataka Bank, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 Hesarghatta Main Road Branch, Bengaluru as Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 respectively. 8. PW1 has stated that the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner through two separate cheques and the said amount was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner. DW2, who is the Manager of Karnataka Bank and DW3, who is the officer of Karnataka Bank, Hesarghatta Branch, Bengaluru have stated before the Trial Court that the amounts covered under the cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 were drawn across the cash counter in the bank and they were not transferred to the bank account of the person in whose name the cheques were drawn. 9. DW2 and DW3 have stated that the signature of the person drawing the amount under a drawer's cheque is taken on the back side of the cheque before paying the amount covered under the said cheque. According to PW1, the cheques Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 were issued to the petitioner and the amount covered under the said cheques were drawn by him. If that is so, petitioner's signature should be found on the back side of the cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10. The petitioner has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 disputed the signatures found on the back side of cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 and he had made a request before the Trial Court to refer his disputed signatures found in Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 to the Forensic Science Laboratory and accordingly the Trial Court had referred the cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad for the purpose of verifying the disputed signatures of the petitioner found on the back side of Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 after comparing the same with his admitted signature found in Ex.P1 and also in his vakalath and Section 313 of Cr.P.C, statement. 10. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad after verifying the disputed signatures of the petitioner in Ex.D9 and Ex.D10, with the admitted signature of the petitioner, in his cheque at Ex.P1, vakalath and also his specimen signatures which were obtained by the Trial Court and forwarded to the laboratory has opined that signatures found on the back side of the cheques Ex.D9 and Ex.D10, which are marked as Q2 and Q3 do not tally with the admitted signature of the petitioner found in the cheque at Ex.P1 and other admitted signatures - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 found in his vakalath, specimen signatures forwarded by the Trial Court etc. 11. The opinion of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad, Telangana State dated 09.12.2022 which was forwarded under a letter dated 13.12.2022 reads as follows: "1. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S71 and A1 to A10 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q2 and Q3. 2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S71 and A1 to A10 also wrote the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q1". 12. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The petitioner has taken a specific defence before the Trial Court that he had agreed to sell his Ford Fiesta car to the respondent / complainant for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and accordingly had also received the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the respondent / complainant and had handed over him the signed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 Form No.29 and 30 along with two blank signed cheques as security for the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- received by him from the respondent. According to the petitioner, he had borrowed loan for the purpose of purchase of the said car and since the petitioner could not pay the loan amount and get the hypothecation entry clear, there was a delay in transferring the car in the name of the respondent. Subsequently, hypothecation entry was cleared and the car was transferred in favour of the respondent / complainant. But the cheques which were given as security along with Form No.29 and 30 were not returned to the petitioner. 13. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he has admitted about the aforesaid transaction which was made for purchase of the car which belonged to the petitioner. He also has admitted that the said car was hypothecated and after the hypothecation entry was cleared, the car was transferred in his name. Though, he has denied that the cheque in question was received by him as a security, the transaction of the petitioner with the respondent that was put forward in support of the defence set up by the petitioner has been admitted by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 PW1, though, he has disputed the receipt of the cheque ExP1 as security to the said transaction. The petitioner has taken the aforesaid specific defence at the inception while replying to the legal notice which was received by him. Ex.P8 is the copy of the reply notice issued on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the aforesaid specific defence was taken by him. In the reply notice itself, he had disputed that he had borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondent and he had clearly stated that no amount was transferred to his bank account as stated in the legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent. 14. According to the respondent, amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner under the cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10. Since the signatures found on the back side of the said cheques, do not belong to the petitioner as per the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory, it cannot be said that the respondent / complainant had proved before the Trial Court that he had paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner under the cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 and the cheque in question was issued towards repayment of the amount paid under the said cheques. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 15. For attracting an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the cheques issued by the accused should be towards discharge of legally recoverable debt and in the present case, the respondent / complainant had failed to prima facie prove that the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid by him to the petitioner under the two cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10. In view of the oral and documentary evidence that was placed on record by the petitioner by examining three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and producing ten documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D10, the defence put forward by the petitioner was clearly probabilised by him and therefore the presumption that arose against him under Section 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act was successfully rebutted by him. The burden to prove the transaction therefore automatically shifts on the petitioner and in the present case having regard to the evidence of DW1 to DW3 and the Forensic Science Laboratory report / opinion with regard to the petitioner's disputed signatures found on the back side of the cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 it becomes highly doubtful that the amount covered under the two cheques at Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 were withdrawn by the petitioner. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 16. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and in my considered opinion, have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained. 17. Accordingly, the following :- ORDER (i) Criminal Revision petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.25700/2015 dated 06.07.2023 by the Court of Addl. Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru dated 06.07.2023 and the judgment and order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.969/2023 by the Court of LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4280 CRL.RP No. 851 of 2025 Negotiable Instruments Act. His bail bonds if any, stands cancelled and fine amount deposited if any, shall be refunded. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS