- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5545 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1618 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.383, 1ST FLOOR 9TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD T K LAYOUT, MYSORE PIN CODE - 570 009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRATHAP K.V, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: SRI MADAPPA S/O LATE K.P. MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.671/A, 13TH MAIN T K LAYOUT, MYSORE PIN CODE - 570 009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRASIDDARAJ, ADV., FOR SRI K.B.K. SWAMY, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 438 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE MYSORE IN CRL.A.NO.71/2024 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 17.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (IV) COURT AT MYSORE, IN C.C.NO.2544/2019 FOR P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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:5545 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The 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.2544 of 2019 dated 17.02.2024 by the Court JMFC (IV Court), Mysuru and the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024 by the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate, Mysore in C.C.No.2544 of 2019. It is the specific case of the respondent / complainant that petitioner was acquainted to him and borrowed a sum of ₹.4,50,000/- for his necessities and towards repayment of the said amount had issued the cheque in question dated 25.03.2019 bearing No.417314 for a sum of ₹.4,50,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, V.V. Mohalla Branch, Mysore in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5545 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2024 favour of the respondent. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara "Funds insufficient". Thereafter, the respondent had got issued legal notice to the petitioner, which was duly served on him. In spite of service of legal notice, the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question and therefore respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.2544 of 2019. The petitioner, who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons issued to him in C.C.No.2544 of 2019 had claimed to be tried. 4. Respondent to prove his case had examined himself as PW1 and got marked six documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and one document was got marked as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides vide the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 convicted the petitioner in C.C.No.2544 of 2019 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of ₹.4,55,000/- and in default to undergo - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5545 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2024 simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.2544 of 2019 has been confirmed by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2024 vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2024. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, amount borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent was only ₹.50,000/-. The signed blank cheque issued by the petitioner as a security for the amount of ₹.50,000/- borrowed, was misused by the respondent and present proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, based on the said cheque. He submits that, evidence of DW1 and DW2 have not been properly appreciated by the Courts below, which has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5545 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2024 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and prays to dismiss the petition. 7. It is the case of the respondent / complainant that petitioner who is his acquaintance had borrowed a sum of ₹.4,50,000/- in cash and towards repayment of the said amount he had issued the cheque. The petitioner has raised a defence before the Trial Court, stating that he had only borrowed a sum of ₹.50,000/- from the respondent in the month of April, 2015 and the cheque in question was issued as a security to the said amount borrowed by him and the same was misused by the respondent. 8. The petitioner has not disputed his signature found in the cheque in question, which is marked as Ex.P1(a). It is also not in dispute that cheque was drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained by him in Syndicate Bank, V. V. Mohalla branch, Mysore. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee bank with a shara "Funds insufficient". The statutory legal notice issued thereafter on behalf of the respondent / complainant was undisputedly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5545 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2024 served on the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, petitioner had not paid the amount covered under the cheque in question. Therefore, presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Unless the respondent rebuts the same by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. It is the specific defence of the petitioner that he had borrowed an amount of ₹.50,000/- from the respondent in the month of April 2015 and the cheque in question was given as a security for the said amount borrowed by him. According to the petitioner, the amount of ₹.50,000/- was paid in the month of April 2015 by the respondent / complainant through a self cheque. During the course of cross-examination of the petitioner, who was examined as DW1 before the Trial Court, complainant had confronted his account statement maintained in Merchants' Co-operative Bank Ltd, Mysore for the period from 01.01.2015 to 07.10.2021, which was marked as Ex.P6. DW1 after perusing Ex.P6 has admitted that there is no entry in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5545 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2024 the account statement of the complainant at Ex.P6 with regard to withdrawal of ₹.50,000/- through self cheque in the month of April-2015. 10. To prove his defence, the petitioner also had examined his friend DW2-Manjunath P. Though this witness during the course of his examination-in-chief has stated that he was present when the petitioner had borrowed sum of ₹.50,000/- from the respondent, during the course of his cross- examination, he has stated that he had deposed before the Court as per the instructions given by the petitioner outside the Court. Therefore, the evidence of DW2 is of no aid to the petitioner. The presumption that arose against the petitioner therefore stood unrebutted. The Courts below are therefore, fully justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and proportionate. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5545 CRL.RP No. 1618 of 2024 12. The services of learned Amicus Curiae is placed on record and his fee is fixed at ₹.15,000/-. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28