- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9311 CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2025 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. 1447 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI PRAKASH N S/O LATE S. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT, NO.D-2, CFTRI QUARTERS V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002. …PETITIONER (BY MS. SUMATHI M HALAGI, ADV., FOR SRI VIJAYA KUMAR T.M, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI MANJUNATHA (DEAD) S/O LATE. NAGALINGACHARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.3808, PANCHALA BEEDI GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 477. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED MANJUNATH 1a. SMT. RAJESWARI W/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 1b. SRI CHETHAN S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 1c. SRI NITHIN S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. ALL R/AT NO.3808, PANCHALA BEEDI GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 477. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9311 CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2025 (BY SRI DHARSHAN K.M, ADV., FOR SRI DHANANJAY K.M, ADV., FOR R-1(a-c)) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 05.08.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.423/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT MYSURU AND THE ORDER DTD 23.11.2024 IN CC.NO.3030/2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSURU 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 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.3030 of 2020 dated 23.11.2024 by the Court of IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru and the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.423 of 2024 dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Court of VI Addl. District & Special Judge, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9311 CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2025 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act') in C.C.No.3030 of 2025 before the Court of IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from him on 02.04.2020 and towards repayment of the said amount, cheque in question bearing No.453065 dated 30.04.2020 drawn on State Bank of India, CFTRI Premises, V.V.Mohalla Branch, Mysuru for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was issued in his favour. The said cheque when presented for realization was dishonoured by drawee bank on 28.07.2020 for the reason that there was no sufficient amount available in the bank account of the petitioner. Thereafter, the statutory legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent was served on the petitioner. Since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question, in spite of service of legal notice, respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No.3030 of 2020. In the said proceedings, respondent had examined himself as PW1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of the petitioner, he had examined himself as DW.1 and three documents were marked as Ex.D1 to 3. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9311 CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2025 Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.3030 of 2020 has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.423 of 2024 by the Appellate Court. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The Complaint in order to substantiate his case before the Trial Court had examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to P9. Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and signature of the accused in the cheque is marked as Ex.P1(a). The petitioner has not disputed his signature found in the cheque in question nor has he disputed that the cheque was drawn on his bank account maintained by him in State Bank of India, CFTRI Premises, V.V.Mohalla Branch, Mysuru. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonored by the drawee bank for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9311 CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2025 reason that there was no sufficient amount available in the account of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the statutory notice issued on behalf of the respondent has been served in the present case on the petitioner. Therefore, a presumption arises against the petitioner under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of the N.I. Act and unless the petitioner puts forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. According to the petitioner / accused, respondent and his wife were running chit business and he was a subscriber for the same. He had issued three signed blank cheques as a security in the said transaction, which was allegedly misused by the respondent for initiating the proceedings against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Except the oral statement of DW1, he has not produced any other material before the Court in support of the defence put forward by him. It is under the said circumstances, Trial Court has convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the ground that he had failed to rebut the presumption that arose - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9311 CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2025 against him. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial court. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner by the Courts below is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 7. Registry shall forthwith return the trial Court records. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40