[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

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

NC: 2026:KHC:7954

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

NC: 2026:KHC:7954

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

NC: 2026:KHC:7954

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

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

NC: 2026:KHC:7954

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

NC: 2026:KHC:7954

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

NC: 2026:KHC:7954

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

NC: 2026:KHC:7954

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

HC-KAR

Appellate Court taking into consideration that the fine amount,

imposed on the petitioner was on the higher side has modified