- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9293 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1427 OF 2022 BETWEEN: T.J. RAMESH S/O LATE JAVARAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS TEACHER R/O THIPUR VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A, ADV.) AND: CHANDRASHEKARA S/O LATE KEMPASHETTY NOW AGEDA BOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KUMBARAKOPPALU VILALGE KASABA HOBI, K.R. NAGARA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRITHVIRAJ B.N, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21.09.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KRISHNARAJANAGARA IN C.C.NO.805/2013 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.188/2021 DATED 13.10.2022 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. 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:9293 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2022 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.805 of 2013 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R. Nagar, Mysuru dated 21.09.2021 and the judgment and order dated 13.10.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2021 passed by the Court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru. 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 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short, 'N.I. Act') before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.805 of 2013. It is the case of the respondent that, petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹.90,000/- from him in the month of January 2013 and towards repayment of the said amount, he had issued the cheque in question bearing No.112812 dated 25.03.2013 drawn on Navanagara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., C.M.Road, Krishnarajanagara, Mysuru District for a sum of ₹.90,000/-. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9293 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2022 The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonored by the drawee bank. Thereafter, the statutory legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent was served on the petitioner and since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question, criminal proceedings was initiated against him in C.C.No.805 of 2013 by the respondent. In the said case, petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of ₹.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2021 by judgment and order dated 13.10.2022 by the Court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, the petitioner has not disputed the signature found in the cheque in question nor it was disputed that the cheque was drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained in Navanagara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., C.M.Road, Krishnarajanagara, Mysuru District. The said cheque was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9293 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2022 dishonoured by the drawee bank for the reason that funds were insufficient in the bank account of the petitioner. Therefore, presumption as provided under Section 139 read with 118 N.I. Act arises against the petitioner. Unless the said presumption is rebutted by the petitioner by putting forward a probable defence, the petitioner is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. In the present case, Courts below have concurrently held that petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that arose against him as provided under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of the N.I. Act. The Courts below having convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act have sentenced him to pay ₹ 1,00,000/- and in my considered opinion the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is also just and proper. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS