- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3652 CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1482 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. K.S. KIRAN KUMAR S/O SRI LATE K S MANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO. 15, ANCHEPETE, 2ND CROSS RT STREET, AVENUE ROAD CROSS BANGALORE - 560 053. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESH A, ADV.) AND: MR. K.V. CHANNARAYAPPA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDINGAT NO. 71/2, 3RD CROSS CUBBONPET, BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI C. VENKATESH, ADV.) 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 CONVICTION ORDER DATED 02.06.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1757/2021 BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CMM, BENGALURU AND CONFIRMATION OF THE SAME IN CRL.A.NO.770/2022 BY THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DATED 14.08.2024 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND DISMISS THE COMPLIANT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLIANT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3652 CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024 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.1757 of 2021 by the Court of XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 02.06.2022 which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.770 of 2022 by the Court of LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge on 14.08.2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Accused, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act') in C.C.No.1757 of 2021 before the Court of XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. It is the case of the respondent that he and the petitioner are acquainted to each other and at the request of the petitioner, he had paid the hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to him and towards repayment of the said loan amount, the petitioner had issued the cheque in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3652 CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024 question bearing No.000057 dated 03.03.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, K.G. Road Branch, Bangalore in his favour. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient fund". Thereafter, a legal notice was issued on behalf of the complainant and since in spite of service of legal notice, the petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question, the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In response to the summons received from the Trial Court in C.C.No1757/2021, the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate his case, the respondent had examined himself as PW1 and had produced and got marked five documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. In support of his defence, petitioner had examined himself as DW1. However, no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.1757 of 2021 had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3652 CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024 Rs.2,00,000/- and in default directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for period of two months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court has been Confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.770 of 2022 by the Court of LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru vide judgment and order dated 14.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the cheque in question was given as a security to the loan borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent earlier. Though the entire loan amount was repaid, the cheque in question was not returned and it was misused by the respondent. He submits that the Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and have erred in convicting the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3652 CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024 6. According to the complainant, he and the petitioner are acquainted with each other and at the request of the petitioner he had given a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question was issued. Petitioner has raised a defence before the Trial Court that he had earlier borrowed a loan from the respondent, which was repaid and the cheque in question which was given as security to the earlier loan, was subsequently misused by the respondent. 7. From the aforesaid, the acquaintance between the parties is not in dispute and the financial capacity of the petitioner to pay the amount also cannot be disputed. Petitioner has not disputed his signature found in the cheque in question nor has he disputed that the cheque was drawn on his bank account maintained in Bank of Baroda, K.G.Road, Bengaluru. The said cheque was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that there was insufficient funds in the bank account of the petitioner. Undisputedly, though the legal notice was served on the petitioner, he had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question. Therefore, there is a presumption as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3652 CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024 against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of N.I. Act. Unless the said presumption is rebutted by the petitioner in accordance with law by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 8. Petitioner has taken a specific plea before the Trial Court that the cheque in question was issued as a security to the loan borrowed by him. According to petitioner, the earlier loan borrowed by him was cleared and the cheque in question which was taken as security was not returned by the respondent. This defence set up by the petitioner has not been probabalized by him. Except the oral testimony of the petitioner there is no other document produced by him before the Trial Court to show that the cheque in question was issued as a security to the loan borrowed by him earlier from the respondent / complainant. Since the petitioner has failed to probabilise his defence which was put forward before the Trial Court, the presumption that arose against the petitioner as stated herein above stood unrebutted and therefore the Courts below are justified in convicting him for the offence punishable - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3652 CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Even the sentence imposed on him is just and proportionate. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below does not call for any interference. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal revision petition is dismissed. The amount deposited by the petitioner before the Trial Court, if any, is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent / complainant. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43