Sri M H Manjunath Vs Sri Thimmaraju D v

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9294 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 419 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI M.H. MANJUNATH S/O LATE HANUMANTHRAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT BOOTHESHWARANAGARA MEKERAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SATHISHA D.J, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI THIMMARAJU D.V S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.10 1ST CROSS SHAMBHAVI NAGARA 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGERE BANGALORE - 560 058.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. MAHESHWARI D.M, ADV.)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.544/2019, DATED 14.01.2022, PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.21017/2016 DATED 08.02.2019 PASSED IN 26TH A.C.M.M., AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:9294 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

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.21017 of 2016 dated 08.02.2019 by the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.544 of 2019 dated 14.01.2022 by the Court of LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶23

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 C.C.No.21017 of 2016 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. It is the specific case of the respondent / complainant that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹.2,00,000/- from him on 16.06.2016 and towards repayment of the said amount, Cheque bearing no.520401 dated 16.06.2016 drawn on ICICI Bank, R.T. Nagar branch, Bengaluru in favour of the respondent for a sum of

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:9294 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

₹.2,00,000/- was issued. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee bank on 02.08.2016. Thereafter, statutory legal notice was got issued on behalf of the respondent, which was duly served on the petitioner. Since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question in spite of service of legal notice, proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.21017 of 2016. In the said proceedings, the respondent complainant had examined himself as PW.1 and got marked six documents as Ex.P1 to P6. The petitioner had examined himself as DW.1 and his father was examined as DW.2 and one document was got marked in support of the defence as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on the record had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of ₹.2,50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.21017 of 2016 was confirmed in Criminal Appeal

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:9294 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

No.544 of 2019 by the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 14.01.2022. It is under these circumstances, accused / petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defence raised by the petitioner has not been properly considered by the courts below. He submits that, respondent has admitted that the cheque in question was filled and written by him. Cheque in question was not issued towards legally recoverable debt and therefore the Courts below were not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and prays to the dismiss the petition.

¶34

According to the complainant, who has been examined in the present case as PW1, petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹.2,00,000/- from him on 10.06.2016 and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question was issued. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:9294 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

dishonoured by the drawee bank on 02.08.2016 with a shara "account closed". Undisputedly, legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent thereafter was served on the petitioner and inspite of service of notice, the amount covered under the cheque in question was not paid. The signature of the petitioner found in the cheque in question, and the fact that cheque in question was drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained by him in ICICI Bank, R.T. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru is not in dispute in the present case. Therefore, presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of N.I. Act. Unless the said presumption is rebutted by a putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶39

In the present case, accused has taken a defence that cheque in question was issued by him to one Narasimhaiah along with another cheque. The said Narasimhaiah had already initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No.23082 of 2016. However, except producing Ex.D1 which is the complaint in C.C.No.23082 of 2016, no other material was produced by

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:9294 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the petitioner before the Trial Court to probabilise his defence. In the complaint, which was filed in C.C.No.23082/20616, there is no reference to the cheque in question. DW2, who is the father of the petitioner, during the course of his crossexamination has stated that, he is not aware of the transaction of the petitioner with the respondent complainant. He also has stated that he is not aware of Narasimhaiah to whom petitioner herein allegedly had handed over the cheque in question.

¶44

Appreciating the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Trial Court has held that the presumption that arose against the petitioner stood unrebutted and the Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record has confirmed the said finding recorded by the Trial Court. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said finding recorded by the Courts below concurrently. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that the cheque in question was filled by the respondent and not by the petitioner is concerned, the law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIR SINGH

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:9294 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

V MUKESH KUMAR - (2019) 4 SCC 197 and at paragraph

¶49

nos.33, 34 and 36 it is observed as follows:-

¶50

" 33 . A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.

¶51

34 . If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.

¶52

Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.".

¶53

8 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:9294 CRL.RP No. 419 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality

¶57

or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by Courts below. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

9. Accordingly petition is dismissed.

¶59

Amount deposited by the petitioner if any before the trial

¶60

Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent / complainant.

¶61

The registry is directed to forthwith, return the Trial Court records.

¶62

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶63

NMS

Sri M H Manjunath v. Sri Thimmaraju D v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M H Manjunath v. Sri Thimmaraju D v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri J Nagaraj @ Wilson Garden Naga Vs State by

M/S Drn Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ashoka B Vs the State

Sri Prakash N., Vs Sri Manjunatha (Dead)

Smt Manjula a S Vs Smt Vijaya

Sanjay Ramesh Sachdev Vs Radhika G Thakural