[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr.K.S. Kiran Kumar vs Mr.K.V. Channarayappa on 22 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3652
CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1482 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. K.S. KIRAN KUMAR
S/O SRI LATE K S MANI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO. 15, ANCHEPETE, 2ND CROSS
RT STREET, AVENUE ROAD CROSS
BANGALORE - 560 053.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH A, ADV.)
AND:
MR. K.V. CHANNARAYAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
RESIDINGAT NO. 71/2, 3RD CROSS
CUBBONPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C. VENKATESH, ADV.)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI M THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W
S
SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ORDER DATED 02.06.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1757/2021 BY THE
KARNATAKA
XIII ADDITIONAL CMM, BENGALURU AND CONFIRMATION OF THE
SAME IN CRL.A.NO.770/2022 BY THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DATED 14.08.2024 BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND DISMISS THE
COMPLIANT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLIANT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3652
CRL.RP No. 1482 of 2024
HC-KAR
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.1757 of 2021 by the Court of XIII
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated
02.06.2022 which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.770 of
2022 by the Court of LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge on 14.08.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against
the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Accused, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act') in
C.C.No.1757 of 2021 before the Court of XIII Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. It is the case of the
respondent that he and the petitioner are acquainted to each
other and at the request of the petitioner, he had paid the hand
loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to him and towards repayment of the
said loan amount, the petitioner had issued the cheque in
NC: 2026:KHC:3652
HC-KAR
question bearing No.000057 dated 03.03.2020 for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, K.G. Road Branch,
Bangalore in his favour. The said cheque on presentation for
realisation was dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient
fund". Thereafter, a legal notice was issued on behalf of the
complainant and since in spite of service of legal notice, the
petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque
in question, the respondent had initiated proceedings against
the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act. In response to the summons received from the Trial
Court in C.C.No1757/2021, the petitioner had appeared before
the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate
his case, the respondent had examined himself as PW1 and had
produced and got marked five documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. In
support of his defence, petitioner had examined himself as
DW1. However, no documents were marked on behalf of the
defendant. After hearing the arguments addressed on both
sides, the trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order
dated 02.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.1757 of 2021 had
convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of
NC: 2026:KHC:3652
HC-KAR
Rs.2,00,000/- and in default directed him to undergo simple
imprisonment for period of two months. The said judgment and
order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court has
been Confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.770 of 2022 by the Court
of LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru vide
judgment and order dated 14.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated
the grounds urged in the petition submits that the cheque in
question was given as a security to the loan borrowed by the
petitioner from the respondent earlier. Though the entire loan
amount was repaid, the cheque in question was not returned
and it was misused by the respondent. He submits that the
Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter
and have erred in convicting the petitioner. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the the respondent
has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below.
NC: 2026:KHC:3652
HC-KAR
6. According to the complainant, he and the petitioner
are acquainted with each other and at the request of the
petitioner he had given a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash
and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in
question was issued. Petitioner has raised a defence before the
Trial Court that he had earlier borrowed a loan from the
respondent, which was repaid and the cheque in question which
was given as security to the earlier loan, was subsequently
misused by the respondent.
7. From the aforesaid, the acquaintance between the
parties is not in dispute and the financial capacity of the
petitioner to pay the amount also cannot be disputed. 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 in Bank of Baroda, K.G.Road, Bengaluru.
The said cheque was dishonored by the drawee bank for the
reason that there was insufficient funds in the bank account of
the petitioner. Undisputedly, though the legal notice was served
on the petitioner, he had not repaid the amount covered under
the cheque in question. Therefore, there is a presumption as
NC: 2026:KHC:3652
HC-KAR
against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with
Section 118 of N.I. Act. Unless the said presumption is rebutted
by the petitioner in accordance with law by putting forward a
probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
8. Petitioner has taken a specific plea before the Trial
Court that the cheque in question was issued as a security to
the loan borrowed by him. According to petitioner, the earlier
loan borrowed by him was cleared and the cheque in question
which was taken as security was not returned by the
respondent. This defence set up by the petitioner has not been
probabalized by him. Except the oral testimony of the petitioner
there is no other document produced by him before the Trial
Court to show that the cheque in question was issued as a
security to the loan borrowed by him earlier from the
respondent / complainant. Since the petitioner has failed to
probabilise his defence which was put forward before the Trial
Court, the presumption that arose against the petitioner as
stated herein above stood unrebutted and therefore the Courts
below are justified in convicting him for the offence punishable
NC: 2026:KHC:3652
HC-KAR
under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Even the sentence imposed on
him is just and proportionate. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by
the Courts below does not call for any interference.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal revision petition is
dismissed.
The amount deposited by the petitioner before the Trial
Court, if any, is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent /
complainant.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43
