[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Srs Agencies vs Mr. Lakshmanachari on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10088
CRL.RP No. 98 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. 98 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
M/S SRS AGENCIES
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
JAGADISH M.S.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SRIGANDHANAGAR
NEAR KONIKA GARDEN
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAHUL RAJKUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
MR. LAKSHMANACHARI
W/O VENKATACHARI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.108/109 SAPATHAGIRI
BUILDING, 2ND FLORO MUTHURAYASWAMY
Digitally LAYOUT, NEW PNT COLONY SUNKADAKATTE
signed by MAGADI MAIN ROAD
NANDINI M S
Location: BENGALURUPIN - 560 091.
HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF
KARNATAKA (BY G.M. ANANDA, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
IMPOSITION OF FINE, DATED 04.05.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
2ND A.C.M., BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.24113/2016 AND IN
CRL.A.NO.839/2017 CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT IN THE ABOVE CASE
ORDER DATED 15.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU TO IT IS ANNEXED A
AND B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10088
CRL.RP No. 98 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed
under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set
aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.05.2017
passed in CC.No.24113/2016 by the Court of XXII Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and the judgment and
order dated 15.03.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.839/2017 passed by
the Court of LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in
CC.No.24113/2016.
4. It is the case of the respondent-complainant that
petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from him in the
year 2016 and towards repayment of the said amount, he had
issued the cheque in question bearing No.945408 dated
06.09.2016 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sunkadakatte
NC: 2026:KHC:10088
HC-KAR
Branch, Bengaluru, and the said cheque when presented for
realization was dishonoured with a shara 'account closed'. The
legal notice that was got issued on behalf of the respondent
had returned with a shara 'party refused'. It is under these
circumstances, respondent had initiated proceedings against
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the N.I.Act.
5. In the said proceedings, petitioner was convicted by the
Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,05,000/- and in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed in CC.No.24113/2016 was confirmed by the Court of
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in
Crl.A.No.839/2017 vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2019.
It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.
6. The respondent-complainant in order to substantiate his
case before the Trial Court, had examined himself as PW-1 and
got marked nine documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. Ex.P-1 is the
cheque in question and the signature of the petitioner found in
NC: 2026:KHC:10088
HC-KAR
the said cheque is marked as Ex.P-1(a). Ex.P-8 is the loan
agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.
Petitioner has not disputed his signature found in Ex.P-1, nor
has he disputed that the cheque in question was drawn on the
bank account maintained by him in Indian Overseas Bank,
Sunkadakatte Branch, Bengaluru. Therefore, a presumption
arose against him that the cheque in question was issued
towards legally recoverable debt as provided under Sections
139 read with 118 of the N.I.Act. Unless the said presumption
is rebutted in accordance with law by putting forward a
probable defence, petitioner is liable to be convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
7. Perusal of Ex.P-8 - loan agreement would go to show that
the petitioner had undertaken to repay the amount of Rs.5
lakhs borrowed by him and Ex.P-9 is the passbook of the
complainant which would go to show that in the month of
January 2016, he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from
the bank and according to him, the said amount was handed
over to the petitioner.
NC: 2026:KHC:10088
HC-KAR
8. The respondent has raised a defence that he was the
tenant of the complainant and the cheque in question along
with other three cheques which were signed by him were
handed over as security for the purpose of taking the premises
on lease.
9. The material on record would go to show that the other
three cheques are dated 10.08.2012, 13.08.2012 & 05.09.2012
and were drawn totally for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-. Ex.D-1 is
the rental agreement of the premises which was taken on lease
by the respondent. Issuance of the aforesaid three cheques for
a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- is mentioned in the said
agreement and in addition to the amount covered under the
said cheques, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was also paid in cash by
the petitioner to the complainant when taking the premises on
lease. The present cheque is not the subject matter of Ex.D-1.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that even the
present cheque was issued under Ex.D-1 cannot be accepted.
The defence put forward by the petitioner was, therefore, not
probablized by him before the Trial Court, and it is under these
circumstances, the Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
NC: 2026:KHC:10088
HC-KAR
10. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, has rightly
confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any illegality or infirmity
in the judgment and order of conviction impugned in this
revision petition which calls for interference. Even the order of
sentence imposed by the courts below is just and
proportionate. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that this revision petition lacks merit, and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
