Karnataka High Court
Meera Moideen vs Sri B S Harish on 10 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7954
CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1137 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MEERA MOIDEEN
S/O NAZEER AHAMED
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING UNDER THE CARE
OF FARID S/OLATE M K HAMEED
II BLOCK, DANDINPET
KUSHALNAGAR, SOMWARPET
TALUK, H.K.G.N. CHICKEN STALL
B M ROAD, KOPPA VILLAGE
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 234.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRIM.G. GHORPADE SHETEGAR, ADV.)
AND:
SRI B.S. HARISH
S/O SHIVANNEGOWDA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
by NANDINI M
S R/AT CHIKKANNA LAYOUT
Location: HIGH 3RD BLOCK, KUSHALNAGAR
COURT OF SOMWARPET TALUK
KARNATAKA KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANAND K.V, ADV., FOR
SRI B.J. ROHITH GOWDA, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S
438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.03.2021 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1074/2015 (PCR
NO.304/2015) ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT KUSHALANAGAR, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT
U/S.255(2) OF CRPC AND ALSO IMPOSING THE FINE VIDE
ANNEXURE A.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7954
CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, 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 Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1074 of 2015 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Kushalnagar and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.30 of 2021 dated 08.02.2023 by the Court of Prl. Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Respondent / complainant had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act) before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.1074 of 2015. It is the specific case of the respondent that, the petitioner had totally borrowed a sum of ₹.4,80,000/- from the respondent / complainant and towards repayment of the said amount, she had issued the cheque in question bearing -3- NC: 2026:KHC:7954 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024 HC-KAR No.110749 dated 04.04.2015 for a total sum of ₹.4,80,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Kushalnagar branch and when the said cheque was presented for realisation, the same was dishonoured with shara "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, statutory legal notice was issued to the petitioner on behalf of the respondent. In spite of service of said notice, the petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question and therefore the respondent had got initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No.1074 of 2015. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had claimed to be tried before the Trial Court and therefore in order to substantiate his case, the respondent had examined himself as PW1 and the Manager of the Bank was examined as PW2 and 11 documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of defence, petitioner had examined herself as DW1. However, no documents were got marked in support of her defence. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of -4- NC: 2026:KHC:7954 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024 HC-KAR ₹.9,60,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
4. The Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2021 which was disposed of on 08.02.2023 had partly allowed the appeal and while confirming the judgment and order of conviction, the order of sentence was modified and the petitioner was directed to pay fine amount of ₹.7,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, the petitioner has received only a sum of ₹.1,80,000/- from the respondent and there is no material to show that respondent had paid the sum of ₹.3,00,000/- to the petitioner in cash. He submits that Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and have erred in convicting the petitioner. He has also submitted his written arguments and has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. KRISHNA JANARDHANA BHAT V DATTARAYA G HEGDE -
(2008) 4 SCC - 54 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:7954 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. SHIVA MURTHY V. AMRUTHRAJ - ILR 2008 KAR 4629
3. SUBRAMANI V. K. DAMODARA NAIDU - (2015) 1 SCC 99
4. BASAVALINGAPPA V. MUDIBASAPPA - (2019) 5 SCC 418
5. TEDHI SINGH V. NARAYAN DASS MAHANT - (2022) 6 SCC 735
6. RAJARAM SRIRAMULU NAIDU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS V. MARUTHACHALAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS - AIR 2023 SC 471
7. SRI DATTATRAYA V SHARANAPPA - AIR 2024 SC 4103
8. PREM SINGH ROHILA V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
- CRR 849-2021 (O & M) DECIDED ON 02.03.2022, Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits that, the Appellate Court has modified the order of sentence. He submits that the presumption that arose against the petitioner under Section 139 of the N.I. Act has not been rebutted in the present case. He also submits that respondent / complainant during the course of her evidence has gone to the extent of stating that the complainant was a stranger to her, though she had -6- NC: 2026:KHC:7954 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024 HC-KAR received amount from the respondent through bank transaction. Accordingly he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner had borrowed totally a sum of ₹.4,80,000/- from him and towards repayment of the said amount, she had issued the cheque in question bearing No.110749 dated 04.04.2015 for a total sum of ₹.4,80,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Kushalnagar branch in his favour for a sum of ₹.4,80,000/-. During the course of evidence, respondent has examined himself as PW1 and also got marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.
8. According to the petitioner, PW1 has stated that a sum of ₹.1,80,000 was paid by him to the respondent through bank transaction and the balance amount of ₹.3,00,000/- was paid in cash. Ex.P10 is the bank account statement of the respondent maintained at Vijay Bank, which would go to show that a sum of ₹30,000/- was paid by him to the petitioner and Ex.P11 is the bank account statement of PW1 maintained in Central Bank of India, which would go to show that a sum of ₹.1,50,000/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner who has received the aforesaid payment from the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:7954 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent through bank transaction has gone to the extent of stating that complainant was a stranger to her and he was not known to her.
9. According to the respondent, in addition to the aforesaid sum of ₹.1,80,000/- paid to the petitioner through bank transaction, he has paid another sum of ₹.3,00,000/- to the petitioner in cash and towards repayment of the total amount of ₹.4,80,000/-, the petitioner has issued the cheque in question. The signature of the petitioner in the cheque in question is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the said cheque was drawn on the bank account maintained by the petitioner in the State Bank of Mysore, Kushalnagar branch, Kodagu District. Therefore, a presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of N.I. Act, to the effect that the cheque in question was issued towards legally recoverable debt.
10. Undisputedly, the statutory notice issued on behalf of the complainant has been served in the present case on the petitioner and in spite of service of notice, she had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question. Under the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:7954 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024 HC-KAR circumstances, unless the petitioner puts forward a probable defence, the petitioner is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
11. In the present case, the petitioner has at one breath stated that, the respondent / complainant was a stranger to her and she had no transaction with him and on the other, she has also stated that, she only received a sum of ₹.1,80,000/- and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question, which was not filled by her, was issued to the respondent / complainant, which has been misused by him. However, she has not disputed the signature found in the cheque in question. Insofar as the contents of the cheque in question is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIR SINGH V MUKESH KUMAR - (2019) 4 SCC 197 at paragraph nos.33, 34 and 36 has observed as follows:-
"33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in -9- NC: 2026:KHC:7954 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024 HC-KAR discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.
36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt."
12. It is trite that judgments can be relied as precedents only if the same is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the presumption that arose against the petitioner under Section 139 read with 118 of N.I. Act stood unrebutted and therefore, the Courts below were fully justified in convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7954 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2024 HC-KAR Appellate Court taking into consideration that the fine amount, imposed on the petitioner was on the higher side has modified the order of sentence and has reduced the fine amount from ₹.9,60,000/- to ₹.7,50,000/- which is just and proportionate.
13. Insofar as the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner in support of his case is concerned, the same cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, said judgments will not help the petitioner in any way. under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the Courts below were fully justified in convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the same.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39