- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100163 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATH NAGAPATI HEGDE AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.KULUVE VILLAGE, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. U.K. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SUDHEER MARATHE AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. VEERABHADRA GALLI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. U.K. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2023, PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 5057/2022 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02.07.2022, PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I CLASS AT SIRSI IN C.C.NO.995/2013 AND THEREBY THE PETITIONER CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SENTENCE TO PAY FINE OF RS.16,38,713.24 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Lingesh V.Kattemane, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.M.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.995/2013 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5057/2022. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. came to be filed alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (8N.I. Act9 for short) by contending that complainant is having a printing press business in the name and style of Laxminarayan Offset Printers, C.P.Bazar, Sirsi and he is also an agriculturalist. Accused being the resident of Kuluve village had a share in trading the shop business at Bellimane Complex, Sirsi and he is an employee of SBI Life Insurance, Sirsi Branch. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 4. Since the year 2007, accused and complainant are known to each other and accused approached the complainant in the year 2009 and requested the complainant to invest the money in the stock market as he operates the share business in the name and style of Venkateshwara Investments and furnished the registration certificate and as such, the complainant being viewed by the accused, invested the money. 5. However, there was a due in a sum of ¹15,38,713.24 which is the profit earned by the complainant which was in the account of the accused, but he failed to repay the same. After repeated request, he issued a cheque bearing No.000770 dated 06.03.2013 in a sum of ¹15,38,713.24 drawn on ICICI Bank which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement <funds insufficient= and thereafter legal notice came to be issued. There was no compliance to the legal notice and therefore complaint was filed. 6. Learned trial Magistrate, after completing the necessary formalities recorded the evidence of the complainant and the accused and on cumulative consideration of the oral and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 documentary evidence based on record, convicted the accused in inter alia holding in Para No.21 and 22 as under: <21. From the overall consideration of the evidence on record it is forthcoming that, accused has not taken probable defence to rebut the statutory presumption. Mere denial is not sufficient to discharge the onus shifted on the accused. To fortify this opinion, it is proper to refer the decision reported in, 2001 CRI.L.J. 4647, in a case of Hiten P.Dalal V/s. Bratindranath Banerjee, wherein it is held that Presumption that cheque was drawn for discharge of liability of drawer is presumption of law ought to be raised by Court in every case instituted under the Act and mere plausible explanation is not sufficient to rebut the said presumption. 22. Further, in another decision reported in, 2017(2) A.K.R. 527, Arjun Vs.E.Shekar, it is held that, Burden of proving that cheque has not been issued for any debt or liability is on the accused and mere plausible explanation not sufficient to disprove complainant's case. From the gist of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, it is clear that, burden is on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption through cogent evidence, which is not discharged by the accused in the present case. The accused has taken a vague defence and not placed cogent evidence to prove the same. In this case, plea of the accused was recorded as per section 251 of Cr.P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty. Here, except pleading not guilty accused has not stated her defence at the time of recording plea. As - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 per the decision reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528 (Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India) and Crl. Petition No.8943/2010 M/s.Mess Transgare Pvt V/s Dr. R Parvathareddy and in Rajesh Agarwals, Wherein, it is held that; "Accused cannot simply say " I am innocent " or " I pleaded not guilty ". The proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. As such, it cannot be held that accused has rebutted the presumption of law enshrined under section 139 and 118 of N.I.Act, by mere pleading not guilty. From the discussion made supra, it is clear that, accused has neither taken probable defence nor taken steps to prove the same. The contention of the accused that, disputed cheque was not issued towards discharge of his liability is also not proved through cogent and acceptable evidence. To put it other way, accused has not taken and proved probable defence to rebut the presumption of law available in favour of the complainant, envisaged under section 118 read with section 139 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, the case of the complainant is acceptable. The Complainant has proved that, the accused for discharge of his liability has issued Ex.P1 cheque and he has intentionally not maintained sufficient amount in his account to honour the disputed cheques. Hence, this point No.1 under consideration is answered in the Affirmative.= 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.5057/2022. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this court. 10. Sri Lingesh V.Kattemane, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds that in the revision petition vehemently contented that the learned trial Judge failed to note that there was no legally recoverable debt and the cheque was not issued for the purpose of repayment of the amount to the accused. Therefore, very conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is per-se incorrect and suffering from legal infirmity and sought for admitting the revision question for further consideration. 11. Per contra, Sri M.M.Pati, learned counsel for the respondent - complainant supports the impugned orders. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 13. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that Exhibit P1/cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein that of the accused. Further, complainant has stated that he had invested the money in the Venkateshwara Investments which is involved in share business. 14. Details of the money invested is also furnished by the complainant with necessary documentary evidence on record. In the cross-examination of PW1, it has been suggested that if the amount is invested by the complainant, rest of the operations would be conducted by the accused. Further, in the cross- examination, he has admitted that on Ventura Securities or Venkateshwara Investments, he has not taken any other action. But he has stated that since the cheque is issued, he did not take any civil action. 15. Since the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant, it is for the accused to report the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. In that regard, accused got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record two documents namely certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.424/2018 and postal acknowledgment. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 16. Learned trial Judge while considering the probative value of the material evidence placed on record as referred to supra and para 21 and 22 has discussed in detail and noted that the material evidence placed on record by the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption availed with the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 17. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, even after re-appreciation of the material on record having regard to the contentions heard on behalf of the appellant, noted that the presumption available to the complainant is not rebutted by placing necessary material evidence on record. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court also noted that the effect of cross- examination of the complainant by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohitbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2019) 18 SCC 106 and has clearly opined that the learned trial Judge has rightly recorded the finding that the revision petitioner failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:360 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2023 18. In view of the above, this Court, that too under the limited revisional jurisdiction does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 19. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER Criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 34