- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:130 CRL.RP No. 100037 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100037 OF 2025 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SIDDARAMAYYA S/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. KADAMPUR, TALUK. MUNDARGI DIST. GADAG 582101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SELF EMPLOYED TRAINING CENTER AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY GADAG R/BY RACHAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA HUNASIMARAD AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HUDCO COLONY, 3RD CROSS, GADAG TALUK. GADAG, DIST. GADAG 582101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., R/W. 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURTS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 07/2024 BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 03.01.2024 ON THE FILE Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. Date: 2026.01.12 11:16:59 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:130 CRL.RP No. 100037 of 2025 OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC I COURT AT GADAG, IN C.C.NO. 1807/2020 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR SECTION 138 OF NI ACT, AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Srinivas B. Naik and Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, for the parties. 2. The accused in C.C.No.1807 of 2020 is the revision petitioner, challenging the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the N.I.Act’), which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.7/2024. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, contending that the complainant is the Chief Executive Director of the Self-Employed Training - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:130 CRL.RP No. 100037 of 2025 Centre and Rural Development Society, Gadag and that the accused, being an employee of the said Society, was appointed as a loan recovery officer. He recovered the loan amount to the tune of ₹ 5,00,000/- and from the self-employed groups, but the same was not intimated to the Society and was he misappropriated the same. 4. When the said issue was brought to the notice of the accused, he issued a cheque bearing No.705929 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Kadampur Branch, dated 11.09.2020 for a sum of ₹5,00,000/-, which, on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. The legal notice issued to the accused did not result in compliance. Therefore complaint came to be filed. 5. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused, recorded the plea and recorded the evidence of the complainant and seven documentary evidence were placed on record. There was no useful material elicited in the cross examination of PW-1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:130 CRL.RP No. 100037 of 2025 6. For the reasons best known to the accused, to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, no defence evidence was placed on record, either by producing the documentary evidence or by leading the oral evidence. 7. Learned Trial Magistrate thereafter convicted the accused by raising the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, as the cheque admittedly belonged to the accused and the signature on Ex.P1 was not in dispute. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.7/2024. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 18.09.2024. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 11. Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:130 CRL.RP No. 100037 of 2025 vehemently contented that the cheque was not issued towards a legally recoverable debt and therefore, the very conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is incorrect and Ex.P7, which is an agreement between the complainant and the accused is not properly proved and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Per contra, Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to the petitioner and the signature found therein is that of the petitioner. 14. Whenever issuance of the cheque and the signature found therein are established by the complainant, there is a legal presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:130 CRL.RP No. 100037 of 2025 15. No doubt, the said presumption is rebuttable presumption. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused. 16. The above view of this Court is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain v/s Ajay Singh1. 17. Thus, the judgment of the Trial Court and the Judgment of the First Appellate Court need no interference, that too in the limited revisional jurisdiction. 18. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The revision petition dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 24 1(2023) 10 SCC 148.