- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.333 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. EXIM TRADE LINKS NO.611, GIRGAUM ROAD SETHNA BUILDING OPP. WADIA AGYARI MUMBAI-400 002 MAHARASTRA REPTD. BY ITS PARTNER- DESHBANDU RAMANATHA GUPTHA 2. DESHBANDU RAMANATHA GUPTHA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PARTNER OF EXIM TRADE LINKS NO.611, GIRGAUM ROAD SETHNA BUILDING, OPP. WAADIA AGYARI MUMBAI-400 002 MAHARASTRA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VANAJAKSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHREE ANNAPOORNESHWARI ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS PARTNER - P V NAGRAJ S/O P S V VENKATESH, 52 YEARS R/O NO.15, 2ND MAIN, APMC YARD BANGARPET-563114 KOLAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VARUN PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2021 IN CRL.A.No.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR AND C/C III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET IN C.C.No.812/2016 DATED 07.03.2020 ALSO MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONERS MAY BE ORDERED TO BE ACQUITTED OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri N. Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Vanajakshi, counsel for the petitioner. Sri Varun Papi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent submits that he would intend to retire from the case. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.812/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which has been upheld by considered judgment dated 15.01.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.21/2020 is the revision petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused is having a rice trading business and used to purchase rice from the respondent on credit basis. 3.2. Accused said to have purchased 2,500 quintals of rice from the respondent in the month of October 2012 and value thereof was to the tune of Rs.53,00,000/-. Delivery of the rice has taken place and supply of the rice was from 16.10.2012 to 24.10.2012. Second accused said to have paid a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- to the complainant by bank transfer. 3.3. Towards balance amount Rs.40,00,000/-, second accused said to have issued Cheque No.096536, 096537, 096538 and 095539, dated 03.01.2013, drawn on Union Bank of India, Mumbai Branch for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- each. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 Those cheques on presentation returned with an endorsement ‘Insufficient Funds’. 3.4. Statutory notice was issued calling upon to make payment covered under the cheques. There was no compliance to the callings of notice and a reply came to be issued as per Ex.P.14. Left with no alternative, complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held. 5. In order to establish the case of the complainant, complaint represented by Sri. P. V. Nagraj got examined as P.W.1 and placed on record 31 documentary evidence in support of the claim which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. Among them Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are the cheques, bank endorsements, copy of the legal notice, postal acknowledgements, reply notice, accounts extract, bills, certified copy of the courier receipt, envelope cover. 6. During the course of cross examination, a memo came to be confronted to the complainant/PW1 which was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 admitted by the complainant and therefore the same was marked as Ex.D1. Likewise, copy of the statement is marked as Ex.D2 which is also admitted by the witness. 7. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded fine of Rs.30,10,000/- of which sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation taking note of the payment made in the interregnum. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.21/2020. 9. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 15.01.2021 dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraphs 26 to 29 as under: “26. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the presumption contained under Section 139 of NI Act has been clearly rebutted by the Appellant based on the admissions made by PW1 and Ex.D1 & D2. It is further contended that there is no necessity for the accused persons to lead defence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 evidence to rebut the presumption and the same can be shown from the evidence adduced by the complainant himself. It is further contended that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt is upon the complainant and the accused could prove a defence on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary. In this regard, he has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418; Anand Ramachandra Chousgle vs. Sidarai Laxman Chougala & Others reported in 2019 (3) Apex Court Judgments 162 (SC) and M/s. Kumar Exports vs. M/s. Sharma Carpets reported in AIR 2009 SC 1518; and also of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sri.Santosh vs. Sri. Haribhai (Criminal Appeal No.2784/2012 dated 11.11.2020). He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. Krishna Reddy vs. Syed Hafeez (Died) by LRs. Smt. Naseema Begum & another reported in 2019 (3) Apex Court Judgments 732 (SC), wherein it is held that in absence of any document or evidence to show the existence of debt or liability against which Cheque was issued, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 27. There can be no dispute about the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and our Hon’ble High Court in the said decisions. In this case, as noticed above, the appellants have admitted the transaction of receiving rice bags from the respondent and have taken defences which are not proved by them, even based upon preponderance of probabilities. The respondent has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 proved his case and discharged his initial burden by examining himself as PW1 & by producing Ex.P1 to P31. The appellants have not adduced any contra evidence to dislodge the evidence of the respondent. They have failed to rebut the statutory presumption contained under Section 139 of NI Act by proving their probable defences. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the humble opinion that the said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants would not further the case of the appellants in any manner. 28. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 to P31 coupled with the nature of defences taken by the appellants and the failure on their part in adducing any independent rebuttal evidence would clearly establish that the Cheque in question is issued towards legally recoverable debt. From the material on record, the appellants have not disputed issuance of Ex.P1 to P3 - Cheques. They have only tried to take certain defences as discussed above, but have miserably failed to prove their contentions. Since the Appellants have not disputed the signature of appellant No.2 contained on Ex.P1 to P3 and that Ex.P1 to P3 belong to the Bank Account maintained by the appellants, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act is raised. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the case of Rangappa v. Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 has been pleased to hold that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a ‘legally enforceable debt or liability’ also. This Court is also of the humble opinion that the principles laid down by our - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 Hon’ble High Court in the cases of Sri. Sharnappa v. C. Yellappa reported in 2020 (4) KCCR 3065 and Arun Pandurang Naik v. Gopal Sidram Shet reported in 2020 (3) KCCR 2109 are also applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The appellant has failed to rebut the statutory presumption contained under Section 139 of N.I. Act, by proving the defences taken by him, even based upon preponderance of probabilities. 29. Therefore, on re-considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the grounds stated in the Appeal Memorandum, this Court is of the opinion that the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The respondent has complied with all the statutory requirements contained under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court would therefore hold that the respondent has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the appellants have failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As such Point No.1 is required to be answered in the ‘affirmative’ and it is answered accordingly.” 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri N. Ravindranath Kamath representing the revision petitioner, with vehemence contented - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 that the probative value of Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 is lost right of the learned Trial Magistrate which has not been properly considered by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court. 12. Thus, order of conviction recorded by Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court is suffering from serious legal infirmity besides patent factual error and thus calls for interference of this Court. Therefore, sought for admitting the matter for further consideration. 13. He would further invite the attention of the Court that there was a settlement between the parties as is depicted in Ex.D.1 memo and therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt under the Ex.P.1 to P.3 cheques and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Counsel for respondent would submit that he would like to retire from the case after issuing notice to the respondent, but supported the impugned orders. 15. Thus, in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 16. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 is belonging to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 17. Complainant has placed on record documents which would depict that there was a transaction i.e., supply of rice and there is an account maintained by the accused with the complainant vide Ex.P15 - Account extract, which also contains specific transactions vide Ex.P.15(a) and Ex.P.15(b). For supply of the rice, Ex.P16 to Ex P29 bills are placed on record. 18. There is no dispute as to the supply of the rice on behalf of the accused but there was a payment of Rs.10,00,000/- through bank transfer which has been admitted by the complainant. 19. It is the case of the complaint, for the balance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- cheques were given. 20. Memo dated 06.08.2016 is admitted by the complainant which is marked as Ex.D1. It is the contention of the accused that as per the settlement, no amount is due. But, the total settlement amount was to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/-. 21. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge while considering the material evidence placed on record and in the absence of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 any defence evidence except marking Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, raise the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 22. The reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate in this regard is at para 40 to 43 which reads as under: “40. Now let us see whether the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption available in favor of the complainant with probable and convincing evidence. The specific defence of the accused is that he has business transaction with the complainant since several years, hence he had issued 4 blank cheques to the complainant for the security purpose. But the complainant has supplied sub standard quality and being perishable goods, they were required to be thrown away and he has suffered a heavy loss of Rs.32,00,000 41. Even assuming that the complainant has supplied supplied sub-standard quality goods to the accused, why the accused has not return said goods to the complainant and why he has not admitted to bear the loss? But no explanation is offered by the accused. Hence the defence taken by the accused is not trust - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 worthy. Further, the accused has admitted that he has received goods from the complainant and he has paid Rs.10,00,000/ on 13.06.2013 and paid Rs.3,00,000/ on 21.08.2013 towards consideration of purchasing of goods and further he has admitted the issuance of Ex.P1 to P3/cheques and signatures on it. So such being the state of facts, it made very clear that the accused in order to discharge his legally enforceable debt, he has issued said cheques in favor of complainant. 42. It is also pertinent to note that once the issuance of cheque and signature on it, are admitted by the accused, the statutory presumption under section 139 and 118 of N.I. Act shall be drawn in favor of complainant, then the burden shifts on accused, to rebutt such presumption, mere plausible and vague denial are not sufficient in rebutting the presumption, in this records i have gone through the decision reported in criminal Appeal NO.803 OF 2018 between Kishan Rao v/S Shankargouda dated 02-07-2018 and in T.M.Murugan Vs Bojan cited in 2018(8) SCC 469. Accordingly when there is evidence to show that as on the date of cheque, accused was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque to complainant, cheque in question belongs to accused, on presentation the same has been dishonored with endorsement as 'Funds Insufficient, after that complainant got issued legal notice to accused, inspite of service of notice accused has not paid the cheque amount to complainant. Thereby, the accused has committed an - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under such circumstances, I hold that accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. 43. It is incumbent upon the accused to breath life in his evidence by way of oxygenating evidence to make his defence probable and thus, believable. The accused, in the present case, has chosen not to lead any evidence despite being given an opportunity, on the pretext and assumption that the case of the complainant is devoid of corroborative evidence. However, dismally for the accused, the evidence of the complainant has passed the test of objectivity, reason and cogency thereby, standing firm on the pillars of logic bricked by presumptions which the accused has failed to rebut.” 23. Merely on the ground that Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are admitted by the complainant would not be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the discussion carried out by the learned Trial Magistrate which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court as referred to supra. 24. Since the transaction is admitted, cheques are belonging to the accused, signatures found therein are that of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15850 CRL.RP No. 333 of 2021 the accused, this Court does not find any good reasons whatsoever to interfere with the order of the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. 25. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition stands dismissed. (ii) However, time is extended till 10.04.2026 to pay the balance amount. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19