[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
H. H. Gowrish vs Paramesha on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9974
CRL.RP No. 399 of 2024
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.399 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
H. H. GOWRISH
S/O HARISHA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BEHIND
H.B. PETROL BUNK, FARM HOUSE,
THITHAMATHI VILLAGE & POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
PIN CODE - 571 254.
...PETITIONER
(SRI. S.N.MAHESH, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI M S PARAMESHA
Location: S/O KUBERA,
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OF
KARNATAKA RESIDING AT HEMMAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE - 571 426.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2024
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5015/2022 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9974
CRL.RP No. 399 of 2024
HC-KAR
DATED 19.03.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT K.R. PETE IN C.C.NO.306/2016 FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
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 Criminal revision
petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C, with a
prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed in C.C.No.306/2016 dated 19.03.2022 by the
Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R. Pete and the judgment
and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.5015/2022 dated
27.01.2024 passed by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna).
2. Heard the Learned Amicus curiae on behalf of the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing for 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') in
NC: 2026:KHC:9974
HC-KAR
C.C.No.306 of 2016 before the jurisdictional Court of
Magistrate. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner,
who had borrowed sum of ₹.1,50,384/- from him, towards
repayment of the amount borrowed had issued the cheque in
question bearing no.701556 dated 21.08.2025 drawn on Vijaya
Bank, Hutahalli Branch, Mysuru City in favour of the
respondent. The said cheque on presentation for realization
was dishonoured by the drawee bank. The legal notice issued
on behalf of the respondent to the petitioner was duly served
on the petitioner and in spite of service of notice, since he had
failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in
question, respondent had initiated proceedings against him for
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. In the said
proceeding, the Trial Court by judgment and order dated
19.03.2022 has convicted the petitioner for offence punishable
under Section 138 of N.I Act and has sentenced him to pay fine
of ₹.1,70,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 6 months. The said judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court has been
confirmed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.5015 of
NC: 2026:KHC:9974
HC-KAR
2022, which was dismissed on 27.01.2024. It is under the
circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the
petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition
submits that the petitioner is the Managing Director of a
company known as "Karunadu Agro Farm Estate Pvt. Ltd", and
the respondent was a commission agent working for the
Company. The cheque which was signed and kept in the office
of the Company was stolen and misused by the respondent for
filing the present case. The transaction between the petitioner
and respondent is not proved and therefore, the Courts below
were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged
offence. He accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and
prays to dismiss the revision petition.
6. Respondent / complainant in order to prove his case
before the Trial Court had examined himself as PW1 and got
marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Ex.P1 is the cheque
NC: 2026:KHC:9974
HC-KAR
in question, which admittedly is drawn on the bank account of
the petitioner maintained by him in Vijaya Bank, Hutahalli
branch, Mysuru City. The signature of the petitioner in the said
cheque is marked as Exhibit P1(a). Petitioner has not disputed
the signature found in the cheque in question. Therefore, a
presumption arises against him that the cheque in question was
issued towards legally recoverable debt and unless he rebuts
the said presumption by putting forward a probable defence, he
is liable to be punished for offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I. Act. The copy of legal notice Ex.P3, got issued on
behalf of the respondent to the petitioner was duly served and
undisputedly the petitioner has not replied to the said notice.
7. It is the specific defence of the respondent that the
signed cheque which was kept in his office was stolen by the
petitioner and misused for the purpose of filing the present
case against him. Though such a defence was raised by the
petitioner, he has failed to probabilise the same. It is relevant
to notice here that, the petitioner has not disputed that the
writings found in the cheque belongs to him. He had not even
suggested to PW1 that the cheque was filled up by PW1. DW1
NC: 2026:KHC:9974
HC-KAR
has also not stated during his examination-in-chief that the
handwriting found in Ex.P1 does not belong to him. If that is
so, the defence of the petitioner that signed blank cheque,
which was kept in his office was stolen and misused by the
petitioner does not have legs to stand. Resultantly, the
petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose
against him under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of N.I. Act by
putting forward any probable defence. The Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court were therefore fully justified in
convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act. Even the order of sentence passed
against the petitioner is just and proper, which does not call for
interference. Under the circumstances, the criminal revision
petition does not merit consideration.
8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is
dismissed.
9. Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial
Court records.
NC: 2026:KHC:9974
HC-KAR
10. The services of learned Amicus Curiae is placed on
record and his fee is fixed at ₹.15,000/-.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
