- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 591 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 590 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP No. 591/2018: BETWEEN: SRI M.K. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNOJI RAO AGRICUTLURIST AND WORKING IN PETROL BUNK R/O SAKARAYAPATNA VILLAGE AND POST SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK - 577 135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI GAURAV SINGH GAUR, ADV.) AND: SRI S.S. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE S.B. SHIVANNAGOWDA AGRICULTURIST R/O SAKARAYAPATNA VILLAGE AND POST SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK - 577 135. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIKYATH B, ADV., FOR SATISH CHANDRA K, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.07.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR IN C.C.NO.622/2010 WHCIH IS CONFIRMED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 06.03.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.142/2016 AND ETC. IN CRL.RP NO. 590/2018: BETWEEN: SMT. B.E. PUSHPALATHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O ANIL KUMAR WORKING AS TEACHER MODEL HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL SAKHARAYAPATNA R/O SAKHARAYAPATNA VILLAGE AND POST SHAKHAAYAPATN HOBLI KADUR TALUK - 577 135. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FRO SRI GAURAV SINGH GAUR, ADV.) AND: SRI S.S. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE S B SHIVANNAGOWDA AGRICULTURIST R/ SAKHARAYAPATNA VILLAGE AND POST SAKHARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK - 577 135. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIKYATH B, ADV., FOR SRI SATISH CHANDRA K.V, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 18.08.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR, IN C.C.NO.623/2010, WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 06.03.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.158/2016 AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The complainant in the above captioned two revision petitions is common and the dispute between the parties is interrelated, and therefore, the revision petitions are heard together with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent-complainant had initiated proceedings against the petitioner in Crl.RP.No.591/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in CC.No.622/2010. In the said proceedings, petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, and the said judgment and order of conviction passed in CC.No.622/2010 dated 25.07.2016 by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kadur, was confirmed by the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 Crl.A.No.142/2016 by judgment and order dated 06.03.2016. It is under these circumstances, petitioner in Crl.RP.No.591/2018 is before this Court. 4. Respondent-complainant had also initiated separate proceedings in CC.No.623/2010 against the petitioner in Crl.RP.No.590/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and in the said proceedings, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by judgment and order dated 18.08.2016 and the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.158/2016 by judgment and order dated 06.03.2018 has confirmed the judgment and order passed in CC.No.623/2010. It is under these circumstances, petitioner in Crl.RP.No.590/2018 is before this Court. 5. It is the case of the complainant in CC.No.622/2010 that accused M.K.Kumar had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and had issued cheque bearing No.0816230 dated 26.04.2010 towards repayment of the amount borrowed and on presentation of the said cheque for realization, the same was dishonoured by the drawee-bank. After compliance of statutory requirements, proceedings in CC.No.622/2010 was initiated. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 6. In CC.No.623/2010, it is the case of the complainant that accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards repayment of the said amount, cheque bearing No.254972 dated 14.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was issued in his favour and on presentation for realization, the same was dishonoured, and therefore, proceedings was initiated against her in CC.No.623/2010. 7. In both the cases, the common defence set up by the accused was that the cheques in question were issued as security in a land transaction between Anil Kumar - husband of Smt. Pushpalatha who is the petitioner in Crl.RP.No.590/2018 and one Sri Rajegowda who is the friend of the complainant herein. Rajegowda had initiated present proceedings through the complainant. 8. During the course of defence evidence, copy of the plaint and the copy of the judgment in O.S.No.6/2010 has been placed on record by the parties, which would go to show that the aforesaid Rajegowda had filed a suit against Anil Kumar seeking the relief of decree of specific performance. In Ex.D-12 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 which is the judgment passed in O.S.No.6/2010, there is an issue framed which touches the defence raised by the accused in the present case. The said issue reads as under: "whether the defendants prove that in the year 2009 one S.S.Nagaraja has got obtained the signatures of the defendants on blank stamp paper of Rs.200/- each and got fill up and created the said agreement of sale as contended in written statement?" 9. The said issue has been answered in the affirmative by the Trial Court in O.S.No.6/2010 and the suit filed by Rajegowda seeking specific performance of the agreement was dismissed with costs. 10. Plaintiff in O.S.No.6/2010 viz., Rajegowda had approached this Court in RFA.No.966/2014 challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6/2010 (Ex.D-12) and in paragraph 10 of the judgment passed in RFA.No.966/2014, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "10. The defence produced certified copies of the records of criminal case i.e. proceedings initiated by S.S.Nagaraj against 2nd defendant/Anil Kumar (C.C.622/2010) and his wife DW.3 - Pushpalatha (C.C.623/2010) in respect of offence under Section 138 of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 the Negotiable Instruments Act (Ex.D17 to Ex.D50). These were undisputed documents. Though there was no direct nexus between the alleged suit transaction and cheque transaction of the criminal case, it coincides with the defence built up by defendants that their signatures taken on blank stamp papers in respect of earlier loan transaction with S.S.Nagaraj are misappropriated to fabricate the suit document Ex.P1. It is evident from a bare perusal of Ex.P1 that it is a tailor-made document. ‘X’ marks are seen at the lower left corner of each of stamp paper both on the front and back side and the signature of the executants is found on the front leaf of each of stamp paper (four in number of one hundred rupees denomination) occasioning wide blank space between the contents and the signature of executants on each of the page. This would not drive anywhere else rather than the finding recorded by the Trial Court. Mere identification of signatures of attesting witnesses and the scribe on Ex.P1 does not amount to admission and the onus does not shift on the defendants to disprove the disputed document, unless the plaintiff discharges his primary liability of proving the fact in accordance with Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Absence of plaintiff’s signature on Ex.P1 though was one of the facts that weighed for the trial court, it was not the sole consideration, to non-suit him." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 11. Accused - M.K.Kumar is the brother of defendant no.1 in O.S.No.6/2010 and accused - Pushpalatha is the wife of Anil Kumar who is defendant no.2 in the said suit. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the defence put forward by the accused in CC.No.622/2010 and CC.No.623/2010 was probablized and the courts below were therefore not justified in convicting the accused. The complainant has failed to prove the transaction between the parties. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the courts below were not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accrodingly, the following order: (i) Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 25.07.2016 passed in CC.No.622/2010 by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kadur, and the judgment and order dated 06.03.2016 passed by the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.No.142/2016, are set aside. (iii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 18.08.2016 passed in CC.No.623/2010 by the Court of II - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6899 CRL.RP No. 591 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 590 of 2018 Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kadur, and the judgment and order dated 06.03.2016 passed by the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.No.158/2016, are set aside. (iv) Petitioners are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Their bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Amount deposited by the petitioners either before the Appellate Court or before the Trial Court is permitted to be withdrawn by them. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK