[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Tejamurthy C.R vs Sri. Nagesha D.R on 25 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11801
CRL.RP No. 1455 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1455 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI TEJAMURTHY C.R.
RAMESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT CHATACHANAHALLY VILLAGE
HALEBEEDU HOBLI
BELUR TLAUK - 573 115
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHARATH KUMAR G.M, ADV., FOR
SRI JAGADEESH H.T, ADV.)
AND:
SRI NAGESHA D.R.
S/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.30, 3RD STAGE
VIJAYANGARA EXTENSION
Digitally
HASSAN - 573 201.
signed by ...RESPONDENT
NANDINI M S
Location: (BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.)
HIGH COURT
OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
KARNATAKA SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.06.2023 PASSED
BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, IN
CRL.A.NO.27/2022 AND CONFORMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 29.12.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
HASSAN, IN C.C.NO.63015/2017.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11801
CRL.RP No. 1455 of 2023
HC-KAR
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.6015 of 2017 dated 29.12.2021 by
the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan and the judgment
and order dated 26.06.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.27of
2022 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Hassan.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Respondent / complainant had initiated proceedings
against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court of
Magistrate in C.C.No.6015 of 2017 for offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is the case of the respondent that,
petitioner, who was acquainted to him had borrowed a sum of
₹.2,00,000/- as hand loan and towards repayment of the said
amount, he had issued the cheque in question bearing
No.253387 dated 28.09.2017 for a sum of ₹.2,00,000/- drawn
on State Bank of Mysore, Halebeedu branch in his favour. When
the said cheque was presented for realisation, the same was
NC: 2026:KHC:11801
HC-KAR
dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara "Funds
insufficient". The legal notice that was got issued on behalf of
the complainant thereafter to the petitioner was neither
served. In spite of service of legal notice, the petitioner had
neither paid the amount covered under the cheque nor was any
reply notice issued on his behalf. It is under these
circumstances, respondent had approached the Trial Court by
filing a private complaint against the petitioner for offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In the said
proceedings, the Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced
him to pay fine of ₹.2,05,000/- 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 in C.C.No.6015 of 2017 was confirmed by the
Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2022 by judgment
and order dated 26.06.2023. It is under these circumstances,
petitioner is before this Court.
4. The complainant in order to prove his case had
examined himself before the Trial Court as PW1 and had
NC: 2026:KHC:11801
HC-KAR
reiterated the complaint averments during the course of his
deposition. Ex.P1 is the cheque in question and Ex.P1(a) is the
signature of the accused. Ex.P3 is the copy of the legal notice
and Ex.P5 is the postal cover with an endorsement
"unclaimed". It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court
had held that, the legal notice that was issued to the petitioner
was required under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was deemed to
have been served.
5. The petitioner, who had disputed his signature in
the Cheque at Ex.P1 has not made any efforts before the Trial
Court for verification or comparison of the disputed signature
with the admitted signature by any expert. Comparison of the
signature at Ex.P1(a) with the admitted signature of the
petitioner / accused in his vakalath clearly goes to show that
both the signatures are made by the same person. The
petitioner has set up a defence before the Trial Court that
cheque in question was stolen by the respondent and thereafter
misused. However, even after receiving the legal notice or the
summons in the present proceedings, no steps were taken by
the petitioner to file any complaint against the respondent
NC: 2026:KHC:11801
HC-KAR
herein for misusing the stolen cheque. The cheque was not
dishonoured by the drawee bank for the reason that signature
of the drawer differs and on the other hand the cheque was
returned with a shara "funds insufficient". When the signature
found in Ex.P1-cheque belongs to the petitioner and if the
cheque in question is drawn on the bank account of the
petitioner, then a presumption as provided under Section 139
R/w Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act arises against
him and unless, he rebuts the same by putting forward a
probable defence that he is liable to be convicted for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has completely
failed to rebut the aforesaid presumption that arose against
him and it is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has
convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I. Act. The Appellate Court, having re-appreciated the
oral and documentary evidence available on record has rightly
confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
Trial Court. Even the order of sentence passed against the
petitioner by the Courts below is just and proportionate. Under
NC: 2026:KHC:11801
HC-KAR
the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain
this petition.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
8. Respondent / complainant is permitted to withdraw
the amount deposited by the petitioner before the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
