Siddiq Vs Sri B K Nagaraju — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Siddiq Vs Sri B K Nagaraju — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the cheque underlying the complaint bears the petitioner's (accused's) signature, given his defence that the signature on the cheque (Ex.P1), being in Urdu, is not his and that he has no acquaintance with Urdu despite having studied up to the 7th standard in an Urdu school. +1 more

Court's answer

The accused failed to substantiate his defence with cogent evidence and did not rebut the complainant's case: he admitted the cheque but denied his signature on it (which is in Urdu) claiming no acquaintance with Urdu even though he studied up to the 7th standard in an Urdu school; he also admitted service of notice but gave no reply to it.

Ratio / Principle

The judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court do not suffer from illegality or incorrectness; there is no ground to admit the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2024) under Ss. 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C — High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh J), decided 08.07.2026 — revision by the accused (Siddiq) against confirmation dated 01.10.2024 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru (Crl.A.No.430/2023) of his conviction dated 07.11.2023 in C.C.No.978/2013 under S. 138 of the N.I. Act — complaint by B K Nagaraju (proprietor, B.K.N. Enterprise) on a post-dated cheque of Rs.4,80,000/- dated 25.02.2013 returned with endorsement 'old account number not traceable', against financial assistance of Rs.4,80,000/- paid on 25.01.2013; notice served, unanswered — accused's sole defence: signature on cheque (Ex.P1) in Urdu not his despite schooling up to 7th standard in an Urdu school; PW1 admitted in cross-examination that Ex.P1 and its signature belong to the accused; accused admitted service of notice but reply not produced — Trial Court (para 27) and Appellate Court (paras 11, 12, 15) found no rebuttal evidence, no preponderance of probabilities, and the evidence under S. 139 N.I. Act not rebutted — concurrent findings free from illegality or incorrectness; no ground to admit revision — revision petition dismissed.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:34334 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1566 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SIDDIQ S/O LATE MOHAMMED GAFAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.1292 NARASANNANNA AGRAHARA NANJANGUD TOWN OWNER OF YARAB TRANSPORT CINEMA TALKIES ROAD NANJANGUD TOWN – 571 301 MYSURU DISTRICT

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY Y. S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed AND: by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF SRI B K NAGARAJU KARNATAKA S/O LATE SRI B M KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF B.K.N.ENTERPRISE GOODS TEMPO STAND 12^TH CROSS, MGS ROAD NANJANGUD TOWN-571301 MYSURU DISTRICT

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34334 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 01.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU, PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.430/2023 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.11.2023 passed in C.C.No.978/2013 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 01.10.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.430/2023 by the Appellate Court.

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act is that both complainant and accused are friends and accused approached the complainant for financial assistance for Rs.4,80,000/and complainant made the payment of

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34334 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2024

HC-KAR

Rs.4,80,000/- on 25.01.2013 and in turn accused had handed over the post-dated cheque for an amount of Rs.4,80,000/dated 25.02.2013 towards his liability. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘old account number not traceable’ in his bank account. Hence, the complainant issued the legal notice and the same was served on the accused but he neither complied with the notice nor replied to the notice. Hence, a complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Court and he did not plead guilty.

In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P44. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as DW1 and not produced any documents in respect of his case. The very defence of the accused before the Trial Court is that he used to sign the document in English and not in Urdu and signature found in Ex.P1 is in Urdu and the same not belongs to him. But Trial Court taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 when he was cross examined wherein admitted that Ex.P1

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34334 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2024

HC-KAR

belongs to the accused and signature at Ex.P1 is of the accused and the same is extracted in paragraph 22 and even cross examination of PW1 also discussed in paragraph 23 and the evidence of DW1 taken note of in paragraph 24 wherein though accused says that he studied from 1^st to 7^th standard in Urdu school, an attempt is made that he is not having acquaintance with Urdu language. The accused admits that notice was issued to him and the same was served and also deposed that he has given reply to the said notice but the same was not produced before the Court. All these materials were taken note of by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion in paragraph 27 that there is no any rebuttal evidence before the Court. Hence, accepted the case of complainant and not accepted the defence of the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal discussed in detail and on reappreciation of evidence in paragraphs 11 and 12, discussed

NC: 2026:KHC:34334 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2024

5 -

HC-KAR

the evidence of PW1 and also the evidence of the accused in paragraph 15. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is no rebuttal evidence and no preponderance of probabilities in favour of the accused and not rebutted the evidence under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there were two cases but complainants are different and the said cases for the same amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. The very contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that cheque not contains his signature and the said defence is not taken note of by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. Both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material on record in a proper perspective. Hence, interference of this Court is required.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34334 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2024

HC-KAR

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that similar defence was taken in both the cases that the signature found in the cheque not pertains to him. Accused admits the account as well as the Cheque but only denies the signature stating that he is not having an acquaintance with the Urdu language. But his education from 1^st to 7^th standard is only in Urdu school. The said fact is taken note of by both the Courts. Hence, it does not require any interference.

Having heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record and taking into note of factual aspects of the case and also the evidence of PW1 and answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 during the course of his cross-examination and also the defence of the accused which was appreciated by the Trial Court in detail in paragraphs 22 to 24, it is clear that the accused has not substantiated his case placing cogent evidence and he has not rebutted the case of the complainant since he admitted the Cheque but denies his signature on the said Cheque which is in Urdu language stating that he has no acquaintance with the

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34334 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2024

HC-KAR

Urdu language even though he studied upto to 7^th standard in Urdu school. The accused also admitted the service of notice to him but no reply was given to the notice. The Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly considered the material on record while convicting the accused. Under such circumstances, I do not find that the judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court suffer from its legality and correctness. Hence, there is no ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN