Karnataka High Court
Sri B.L.Diwakar vs Govindappa K on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 68 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.L.DIWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA,
BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
MADHURE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUSHIL D.R., AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1. GOVINDAPPA K,
Digitally S/O L KRISHNAPPA,
signed by AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
KAVYA R NO.404, RAMAPURA VILLAGE,
Location: VEERAGONAGARA,
High court
of Karnataka BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.HANUMESH H.N, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 03.09.2018 PASSED BY
THE IV ADDITIONAL AND XXX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.22539/2017 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2019
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020
HC-KAR
PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1961/2018.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
Accused is before this Court in this Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.22539/2017 dated 03.09.2018 by the Court of IV Additional and XXX ACMM, Bengaluru and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.1961/2018 dated 08.11.2019 by the Court of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Respondent herein 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, -3- NC: 2026:KHC:9957 CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020 HC-KAR Bengaluru in C.C.No.22539/2017. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner who is acquainted to him had borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) in cash in the month of October 2016 and towards repayment of the said amount, he had issued two cheques dated 19.05.2017 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) each respectively, drawn on HDFC Bank, MG Road Branch and Oriental Bank, Yelahanka branch, Bengaluru, bearing cheque Nos.173569 and 027158. The said cheques on presentation for realisation were dishonoured by the drawee bank for the reasons' account closed and insufficient funds respectively and thereafter, a legal notice was got issued on behalf of the complainant which was duly served on the petitioner. In spite of service of legal notice, the petitioner neither repaid the amount covered under the cheques-in-question nor any reply was issued on behalf of the petitioner. It is under these circumstances, respondent had initiated proceedings -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9957 CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020 HC-KAR against the petitioner in C.C.No.22539/2017 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
4. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner in the said case for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and had sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.22539/2017 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.1961/2018 by judgment and order dated 08.11.2019 by the Court of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned Amicus curiae having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from the respondent in year 2012 and Exs.D1 to D6 are the bank challan which would show that the entire amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9957 CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020 HC-KAR was repaid by the petitioner to the respondent. The cheques-in-question were issued in the year 2012 as security for the loan of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) borrowed. The respondent has not returned the said cheques and had misused the same in the present case. He submits that the defence of the petitioner was not properly appreciated by the Courts below, which has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment and order. 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 passed by the Courts below and has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Complainant has examined himself before the Trial Court as PW.1 and in his examination-in-chief, he has reiterated the averments found in the private complaint. Copy of the private complaint is marked as Ex.P8. Exs.P1 and P2 are the cheques-in-question and the signature of -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9957 CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020 HC-KAR the petitioner in the said cheques are marked as Exs.P1(a) and P2(a). Petitioner has not disputed his signature found in the cheques-in-question and he also has not disputed that the cheques-in-question were drawn on his bank account maintained in HDFC Bank, MG Road Branch and Oriental Bank, Yelahanka Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheques were dishonoured by the drawee bank, when presented for realisation and thereafter, the statutory notice got issued on behalf of the respondent was duly served on the petitioner. Under the circumstances, presumption as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I.Act arises against the petitioner and unless he successfully rebut the said presumption by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
8. Respondent is an engineer and he has produced his bank statement as Ex.P6 and his income tax returns as Ex.P10, which would go to show that he had sufficient -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9957 CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020 HC-KAR means to pay the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner has set up a defence before the Trial Court that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from the respondent in the year 2012 and as security to the said loan he had issued the cheque-in- question. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid loan of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) was cleared by him in the year 2016 and Exs.D1 to D6 are the bank challans for having paid the loan amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the respondent. The petitioner who has raised a defence that the cheques-in-question were issued to the respondent in 2012 as a security has failed to prove such a defence by examining the officials of the Bank or by producing necessary material before the Court to show that the cheques-in-question were issued in year 2012 itself. Even during the cross-examination of PW.1, the defence of the petitioner was not even put forward and there is no suggestion made to PW.1 that petitioner had borrowed a -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9957 CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020 HC-KAR sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and towards security of the said loan borrowed, he had issued the cheque-in-question.
9. Under the circumstances, the presumption that arose against the petitioner stood un-rebutted and therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were completely justified in convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 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. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and proportionate and does not call for any interference. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Criminal revision petition. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal revision petition is dismissed. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC:9957 CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020 HC-KAR ii. The registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court Records. iii. The services of learned Amicus curiae is placed on record, and his fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/-.
iv. Amount deposited by the petitioner, if any,
is permitted to be withdrawn by the
respondent.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KVR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26