Karnataka High Court

K S Ravi Kumar @ K S Revappa vs B V Chandrappa on 9 July, 2025

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:25118
                                                       CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023


                      HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                         K.S. RAVI KUMAR @ K.S. REVAPPA,
                         SON OF K.M. SIDDAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                         PADDY MERCHANT,
                         RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 61,
                         2ND CROSS, SIDDARUDA NAGAR,
                         BHADRAVATHI,
                         SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. HEMANTH T.C, ADVOCATE FOR
                          SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

Digitally signed by      B.V. CHANDRAPPA,
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI          SON OF S.B. VEERAPPA,
Location: HIGH           AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                RESIDENT OF HOLESIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
                         BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
                         SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. RAKESH A.H, ADVOCATE)

                             THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC
                      PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED
                      BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
                                 -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:25118
                                            CRL.RP No. 1023 of 2023


HC-KAR




SHIVAMOGGA           SITTING          AT       BHADRAVATHI         IN
CRL.A.NO.5034/2022        DATED       02.06.2023       CONSEQUENTLY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED THE
LEARNED        PRL.SENIOR      CIVIL        JUDGE      AND   J.M.F.C,
BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.172/2022 DATED 07.07.2022.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                          ORAL ORDER

This Revision Petition is directed against the

judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.5034/2022

by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga

sitting at Bhadravathi whereunder the judgment of

conviction dated 07.07.2022 passed in C.C.No.172/2022

by Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi

convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred

to as `N.I. Act') and sentencing him to pay a fine of

Rs.4,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for six months has been affirmed.

NC: 2025:KHC:25118

HC-KAR

2. Heard learned counsels on both sides and

perused the impugned judgments and Trial Court records.

3. The case of the complainant before the Trial

Court was that complainant and accused are well-known to

each other from several years. On 20.05.2015 the

petitioner - accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

from the complainant for his domestic purpose and

financial needs and agreed to repay the said amount after

two months. In that regard, the petitioner - accused

issued a post dated cheque bearing No.002214 dated

25.07.2015 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on

South Indian Bank, B.H.Road, Bhadravathi. The said

cheque has been presented by the complainant for

encashment and it came to be dishonoured for reason

"funds insufficient" under bank memo dated 28.07.2015.

The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused by

RPAD on 10.08.2015 demanding payment of the cheque

amount. The said legal notice has been served on the

petitioner - accused on 14.08.2015. The petitioner -

NC: 2025:KHC:25118

HC-KAR

accused has not paid amount of the cheque within 15 days

and, therefore, the complainant has initiated proceedings

against the petitioner - accused for offence under Section

138 of N.I.Act.

4. The respondent - complainant has been

examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 9. The

statement of the petitioner - accused has been recorded

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner - accused has

examined himself as DW.1 and no documents are marked

on his side. The learned Magistrate after hearing the

arguments on both side and appreciating the evidence on

record convicted the petitioner - accused for offence

under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay

fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to

undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The

petitioner - accused challenged the judgment of conviction

before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.5034/2022. The said

criminal appeal came to be dismissed on merits affirming

the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:25118

HC-KAR

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that

the cheque given by the petitioner - accused to one

Narappa (who is the husband of complainant's sister) as a

security to the amount borrowed from him has been

misused through the complainant even in spite of

repayment of the amount borrowed in a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/-. He submits that the complainant has

admitted his relation with said Narappa even though he

has denied the receipt of the cheque by him. The

complainant has not proved the transaction and his

capacity to lend huge money. Without considering all

these aspects the learned Magistrate has convicted the

petitioner - accused and learned Sessions Judge has

dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent supports

the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the Appellate

Court and prayed for dismissal of this Revision Petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:25118

HC-KAR

7. It is the specific case of the respondent -

complainant that he lend a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the

petitioner - accused on 20.05.2015 and in order to repay

the said amount borrowed, petitioner has issued cheque

Ex.P.1. The petitioner - accused who has been examined

as DW.1 has admitted his signature on the cheque Ex.P.1.

As the signature on the cheque is admitted, a presumption

has to be drawn under Section 139 of N.I.Act that the

cheque is issued for discharge of the debt. The said

presumption is rebuttable presumption. The standard of

proof for rebutting the said presumption is that of

preponderance of probability.

8. The petitioner - accused has not issued any

reply to the legal notice even though it has been served on

him personally. The petitioner - accused has taken up

defence in cross-examination of PW.1 that he had

borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from one Narappa (the husband

of complainant's sister) and, at the time of borrowing, he

had given a signed cheque and a promissory note and

NC: 2025:KHC:25118

HC-KAR

even after repayment of the amount borrowed, the said

Narappa has not returned the cheque and promissory note

and cheque has been misused through this complainant.

The said defence has been put to PW.1 in his cross-

examination and he has denied the same. The PW.1 has

only admitted his relation with said Narappa.

9. DW.1 in his chief-examination has put forth his

defence and the same has been denied in the cross-

examination by the complainant. Therefore, the defence of

the petitioner - accused remained unestablished. The

petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption drawn under

Section 139 of N.I.Act. As the presumption is not rebutted,

there is no need for the complainant to prove the

transaction and his capacity to lend the money.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Kalamani tex and Another Vs. P

Balasubramanian, reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283

has held as under:

NC: 2025:KHC:25118

HC-KAR

"13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA.

The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. This point of law has been crystalized by this Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat in the following words:

"18. In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the trial court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour,

NC: 2025:KHC:25118

HC-KAR

any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the appellant accused."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh

Jain Vs. Ajay Singh reported in AIR Online 2023 SC

807 has held as under:

"55. As rightly contended by the appellant, there is a fundamental flaw in the way both the Courts below have proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record. Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25118

HC-KAR

complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly."

12. Considering the above aspects, the judgment

passed by the Trial Court convicting the petitioner -

accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is proper

and correct. The Appellate Court has also re-appreciated

the evidence on record and rightly affirmed the judgment

of conviction passed by the Trial Court. There is no merit

in this Revision Petition. Hence, this Revision Petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE GSR

CT: BHK