[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri B.L.Diwakar vs Govindappa K on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
CRL.RP No. 68 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. 68 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.L.DIWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA,
BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
MADHURE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUSHIL D.R., AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1. GOVINDAPPA K,
Digitally S/O L KRISHNAPPA,
signed by AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
KAVYA R NO.404, RAMAPURA VILLAGE,
Location: VEERAGONAGARA,
High court
of Karnataka BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.HANUMESH H.N, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 03.09.2018 PASSED BY
THE IV ADDITIONAL AND XXX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.22539/2017 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2019
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
CRL.RP No. 68 of 2020
HC-KAR
PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1961/2018.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
Accused is before this Court in this Criminal revision
petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.22539/2017
dated 03.09.2018 by the Court of IV Additional and XXX
ACMM, Bengaluru and the judgment and order passed in
Crl.A.No.1961/2018 dated 08.11.2019 by the Court of LX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Amicus curiae on behalf of the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Respondent herein 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,
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
HC-KAR
Bengaluru in C.C.No.22539/2017. It is the case of the
respondent that petitioner who is acquainted to him had
borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs
only) in cash in the month of October 2016 and towards
repayment of the said amount, he had issued two cheques
dated 19.05.2017 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs only) and Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only)
each respectively, drawn on HDFC Bank, MG Road Branch
and Oriental Bank, Yelahanka branch, Bengaluru, bearing
cheque Nos.173569 and 027158. The said cheques on
presentation for realisation were dishonoured by the
drawee bank for the reasons' account closed and
insufficient funds respectively and thereafter, a legal
notice was got issued on behalf of the complainant which
was duly served on the petitioner. In spite of service of
legal notice, the petitioner neither repaid the amount
covered under the cheques-in-question nor any reply was
issued on behalf of the petitioner. It is under these
circumstances, respondent had initiated proceedings
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
HC-KAR
against the petitioner in C.C.No.22539/2017 for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
4. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner in
the said case for offence punishable under Section 138 of
the N.I.Act and had sentenced him to pay fine of
Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months. The said judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed in C.C.No.22539/2017 was confirmed in
Crl.A.No.1961/2018 by judgment and order dated
08.11.2019 by the Court of LX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. It is under these
circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned Amicus curiae having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner had
borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
only) from the respondent in year 2012 and Exs.D1 to D6
are the bank challan which would show that the entire
amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
HC-KAR
was repaid by the petitioner to the respondent. The
cheques-in-question were issued in the year 2012 as
security for the loan of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only) borrowed. The respondent has not
returned the said cheques and had misused the same in
the present case. He submits that the defence of the
petitioner was not properly appreciated by the Courts
below, which has resulted in passing of the impugned
judgment and order. 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 passed by the Courts
below and has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Complainant has examined himself before the
Trial Court as PW.1 and in his examination-in-chief, he has
reiterated the averments found in the private complaint.
Copy of the private complaint is marked as Ex.P8. Exs.P1
and P2 are the cheques-in-question and the signature of
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
HC-KAR
the petitioner in the said cheques are marked as Exs.P1(a)
and P2(a). Petitioner has not disputed his signature found
in the cheques-in-question and he also has not disputed
that the cheques-in-question were drawn on his bank
account maintained in HDFC Bank, MG Road Branch and
Oriental Bank, Yelahanka Branch, Bengaluru. The said
cheques were dishonoured by the drawee bank, when
presented for realisation and thereafter, the statutory
notice got issued on behalf of the respondent was duly
served on the petitioner. Under the circumstances,
presumption as provided under Section 139 read with
Section 118 of the N.I.Act arises against the petitioner and
unless he successfully rebut the said presumption by
putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be
convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act.
8. Respondent is an engineer and he has produced
his bank statement as Ex.P6 and his income tax returns as
Ex.P10, which would go to show that he had sufficient
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
HC-KAR
means to pay the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner
has set up a defence before the Trial Court that he had
borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
only) from the respondent in the year 2012 and as
security to the said loan he had issued the cheque-in-
question. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid loan of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) was cleared by
him in the year 2016 and Exs.D1 to D6 are the bank
challans for having paid the loan amount of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the respondent. The
petitioner who has raised a defence that the
cheques-in-question were issued to the respondent in
2012 as a security has failed to prove such a defence by
examining the officials of the Bank or by producing
necessary material before the Court to show that the
cheques-in-question were issued in year 2012 itself. Even
during the cross-examination of PW.1, the defence of the
petitioner was not even put forward and there is no
suggestion made to PW.1 that petitioner had borrowed a
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
HC-KAR
sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and
towards security of the said loan borrowed, he had issued
the cheque-in-question.
9. Under the circumstances, the presumption that
arose against the petitioner stood un-rebutted and
therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
were completely justified in convicting the petitioner for
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 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. Even the
order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and
proportionate and does not call for any interference. Under
the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Criminal
revision petition. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal revision petition is dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC:9957
HC-KAR
ii. The registry is directed to forthwith return
the Trial Court Records.
iii. The services of learned Amicus curiae is
placed on record, and his fee is fixed at
Rs.15,000/-.
iv. Amount deposited by the petitioner, if any,
is permitted to be withdrawn by the
respondent.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KVR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
