- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6723 CRL.RP No. 1183 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1183 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI BASAVALINGAPPA M S/O LATE MYLARAPPA K.M R/O HEAD MASTER GHPS, HUNASAGHATTA POST TARIKERE TALUK - 577 549 CHIKKAMAGALUR DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.B. HALLI, ADV.) AND: M/S YADAGERE SOUHARDHA CO-OPERATIVE NIYAMITHA VINOBHA ROAD, KOPPA - 577 126 CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST ITS BRANCH AT TARIKERE REPT BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.122/2015 DATED 11.08.2017 BY MODIFYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, TARIKER DATED 15.06.2015. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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:6723 CRL.RP No. 1183 of 2017 ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.06.2015 passed in CC No.260/2013 by the Court of Civil Judge and Addl. JMFC, Tarikere and the judgment and order dated 11.08.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.122/2015 by the Court of I Addl. Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent, who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court. 3. Respondent/Co-operative Society had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as 'the N. I. Act' for short) in CC No.260/2013 before the Court of Civil Judge and Addl. JMFC, Tarikere. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6723 CRL.RP No. 1183 of 2017 4. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and towards repayment of the amount borrowed, he had issued the cheque bearing No.250703 for a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Tarikere Branch. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara 'funds insufficient'. Subsequently, statutory legal notice was issued on behalf of the respondent and since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question, inspite of service of notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. In the said proceedings, petitioner had claimed to be tried before the Trial Court and therefore, in order to substantiate its case, complainant had examined one S. K. Sathish as PW1 and got marked six documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6723 CRL.RP No. 1183 of 2017 six months and pay fine of Rs.2,71,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The Appellate Court partly allowed Crl.A.No.122/2015 filed on behalf of the accused and having confirmed the judgment and order of conviction, modified the order of sentence and directed the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.1,61,000/-. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the transaction between the parties is not in dispute. PW1 is the authorized representative of the respondent/complainant and his authorization letter is produced at Ex.P1. The cheque in question is produced at Ex.P2 and the notice issued to petitioner by the respondent is produced as Ex.P4. Ex.P5 is the receipt for having sent the legal notice to petitioner. The signature found in the cheque in question is not in dispute so also it is not in dispute that the cheque in question was issued on the bank account maintained by the petitioner in Karnataka Bank, Tarikere Branch. Therefore, presumption as provided under Section 139 of the N. I. Act, arose in the present case - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6723 CRL.RP No. 1183 of 2017 against the accused. The only defence raised by the petitioner/accused is that the legal notice was not served on him. The legal notice issued to the petitioner/accused has returned with a postal shara 'door locked'. The notice has been issued to the correct address of the petitioner in which he was subsequently, served with the summons from the Court. Therefore, in view of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, notice issued to the petitioner on his correct address is deemed to have been served. Since the petitioner had failed to put forward any probable defence before the Trial Court, presumption that arose against him stood unrebutted and both the Courts below were therefore, justified in convicting and sentencing him for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below. Therefore, the following order:- 6. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. 7. Amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/complainant. The balance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6723 CRL.RP No. 1183 of 2017 fine amount if any, to be deposited by the petitioner, shall be deposited by him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57