Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh K vs Sri Lakshmi Narayan on 12 June, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20276
CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1269 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH K,
S/O KENCHAPPA M.S.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.106, I FLOOR,
BRUNDAVANA APARTMENT,
10TH MAIN, DEFENSE LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 097.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAY SHETTY B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYAN,
S/O MR.M.MUNIRAJU,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI R/AT NO.11, 7TH CROSS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD,
KARNATAKA
KADIRENAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.A.FEROZE NIZAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
DISMISSAL DATED 22.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LIX
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20276
CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2019
HC-KAR
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
IN CRL.A.NO.1527/2017 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE
JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2017 PASSED BY THE XVI
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.12488/2016 BY
ALLOWING THIS CRL.A. AND BY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the
impugned judgment dated 22.07.2019 passed in
Crl.A. No.1527/2017 by the LIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge whereunder the judgment of conviction
and order on sentence passed in C.C. No.12488/2016
dated 10.10.2017 passed by the XVI Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru convicting the
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity
referred to as the `N.I. Act').
NC: 2025:KHC:20276
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned counsel for respondent.
3. Petitioner has admitted his signature on the
cheque - Ex.P.1. As the signature on the cheque is
admitted, a presumption has been drawn under Section
139 of the N.I. Act that the cheque is issued for discharge
of legally enforceable debt/liability. Said presumption is a
rebuttable presumption. Standard of proof for rebutting
the said presumption is preponderance of probability.
4. The petitioner - accused in his reply to notice at
Ex.C6 has taken up the defence as under:
"My client denies each and every allegation as
narrated at para No.2 of your legal notice. My
client never issued alleged cheque of rupees
3,50,000/- towards the said liability for the said
amount on month of October 2015 to your
client. As on the date of cheque, no transaction
was taken place between your client and my
client in any manner. Your client has misused
the cheque and wrongly presented only in order
NC: 2025:KHC:20276
HC-KAR
to make unlawful gains against my client.
Since, there is no legally enforceable debt
covered under the cheque dated 15.03.2016.
Hence, your client cannot file and maintain the
case against my client on alleged cheque for
the reasons assigned below. My client states
that, my client never seen your client".
5. The petitioner - accused in the cross
examination of P.W.1/complainant has taken up defence
that he had given a cheque at Ex.P.1 to one C. Muniraju
who is the brother-in-law of the respondent as security to
the chit transaction. P.W.1 has denied the said suggestion
put to him that C. Muniraju was doing chit transaction and
that the petitioner - accused had given cheque-Ex.P.1 to
said C. Muniraju as security for the said chit transaction.
Therefore, the said defence of the petitioner has not been
established. Therefore, the presumption drawn under
Section 139 of the N.I. Act remained un-rebutted.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the respondent - complainant has not
NC: 2025:KHC:20276
HC-KAR
established his capacity to lend the amount. The petitioner
in his reply at Ex.C.6 has not taken any such contention
that the respondent - complainant did not prove that he
had capacity to lend money.
7. In view of the non-rebuttal of presumption
drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act it is to be held
that cheque has been issued for discharge of debt/liability.
8. Considering the above aspects, the trial Court
and the appellate Court have not committed any error in
convicting the petitioner - accused for offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act and in imposition of sentence.
In the result, Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
RKA/KLV
