[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Prakash N vs Sri Manjunatha (Dead) on 16 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9311
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1447 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI PRAKASH N
S/O LATE S. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT, NO.D-2, CFTRI QUARTERS
V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY MS. SUMATHI M HALAGI, ADV., FOR
SRI VIJAYA KUMAR T.M, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI MANJUNATHA (DEAD)
S/O LATE. NAGALINGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.3808, PANCHALA BEEDI
GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 477.
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
DECEASED MANJUNATH
Digitally signed
by NANDINI M 1a. SMT. RAJESWARI
S
W/O LATE MANJUNATHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
1b. SRI CHETHAN
S/O LATE MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
1c. SRI NITHIN
S/O LATE MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
ALL R/AT NO.3808, PANCHALA BEEDI
GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 477.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9311
CRL.RP No. 1447 of 2025
HC-KAR
(BY SRI DHARSHAN K.M, ADV., FOR
SRI DHANANJAY K.M, ADV., FOR R-1(a-c))
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W
442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
DTD 05.08.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.423/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT MYSURU AND THE ORDER
DTD 23.11.2024 IN CC.NO.3030/2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSURU AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 revision petition
filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer
to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed in C.C.No.3030 of 2020 dated 23.11.2024 by the Court
of IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru and the judgment
passed in Criminal Appeal No.423 of 2024 dated 05.08.2025
passed by the Court of VI Addl. District & Special Judge,
Mysuru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The respondent herein had initiated proceedings
against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
NC: 2026:KHC:9311
HC-KAR
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act')
in C.C.No.3030 of 2025 before the Court of IV Addl. Civil Judge
& JMFC, Mysuru. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner
had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from him on 02.04.2020
and towards repayment of the said amount, cheque in question
bearing No.453065 dated 30.04.2020 drawn on State Bank of
India, CFTRI Premises, V.V.Mohalla Branch, Mysuru for a sum
of Rs.6,00,000/- was issued in his favour. The said cheque
when presented for realization was dishonoured by drawee
bank on 28.07.2020 for the reason that there was no sufficient
amount available in the bank account of the petitioner.
Thereafter, the statutory legal notice issued on behalf of the
respondent was served on the petitioner. Since the petitioner
had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in
question, in spite of service of legal notice, respondent had
initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No.3030 of
2020. In the said proceedings, respondent had examined
himself as PW1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P9. On behalf of the petitioner, he had examined himself as
DW.1 and three documents were marked as Ex.D1 to 3. The
NC: 2026:KHC:9311
HC-KAR
Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both
sides, convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Rs.6,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of three months. The said judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.3030 of 2020 has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.423 of 2024 by the Appellate Court. It is under these
circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The Complaint in order to substantiate his case
before the Trial Court had examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to P9. Ex.P.1 is the cheque in
question issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent for
a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and signature of the accused in the
cheque is marked as Ex.P1(a). The petitioner has not disputed
his signature found in the cheque in question nor has he
disputed that the cheque was drawn on his bank account
maintained by him in State Bank of India, CFTRI Premises,
V.V.Mohalla Branch, Mysuru. The said cheque on presentation
for realisation was dishonored by the drawee bank for the
NC: 2026:KHC:9311
HC-KAR
reason that there was no sufficient amount available in the
account of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the statutory notice
issued on behalf of the respondent has been served in the
present case on the petitioner. Therefore, a presumption arises
against the petitioner under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of the
N.I. Act and unless the petitioner puts forward a probable
defence, he is liable to be convicted under Section 138 of N.I.
Act.
5. According to the petitioner / accused, respondent
and his wife were running chit business and he was a
subscriber for the same. He had issued three signed blank
cheques as a security in the said transaction, which was
allegedly misused by the respondent for initiating the
proceedings against him for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Except the oral statement of DW1,
he has not produced any other material before the Court in
support of the defence put forward by him. It is under the said
circumstances, Trial Court has convicted the petitioner for
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the
ground that he had failed to rebut the presumption that arose
NC: 2026:KHC:9311
HC-KAR
against him. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral
and documentary evidence available on record has confirmed
the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial court.
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 in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction. Even the order of sentence passed
against the petitioner by the Courts below is just and proper
and does not call for any interference by this Court. Under the
circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.
6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
7. Registry shall forthwith return the trial Court
records.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
