Dismissed¶51

Srihari N v. R Hareesh

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2026CRL.RP/464/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru — CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017 (decided 13.02.2026, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty) — S.138 NI Act cheque-dishonour conviction upheld in revision; presumption under S.139 r/w S.118 NI Act unrebutted where signatures on cheques, loan agreement and on-demand promissory note are undisputed; plea that cheques were misused by the accused's partner fails; fine of Rs.10,05,000/- with default simple imprisonment of six months held just and proportionate; revision dismissed; Amicus Curiae fees fixed at Rs.15,000/-.

What did the court decide?

None; the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed. The service of the Amicus Curiae was placed on record with fees fixed at Rs.15,000/-. ¶51

Srihari N Vs R Hareesh — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed. The service of the Amicus Curiae was placed on record with fees fixed at Rs.15,000/-.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner rebutted the presumptions arising under Sections 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act (signatures on the cheques, loan agreement Ex.P5 and On Demand Promissory Note Ex.P6 being undisputed) so as to escape conviction under Section 138, in view of his defence that the cheques were misused by his partner Manjunath and that he had borrowed no amount. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

Since the petitioner's signatures on the cheques in question (Exs.P1 and P2), on the loan agreement Ex.P5 (Exs.P5(a) to P5(d)) and on the On Demand Promissory Note Ex.P6 (Exs.P6(a) and P6(b)) were not disputed, the presumption that arose against the petitioner under Sections 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act stands unrebutted, and the Courts below are fully justified in convicting him for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act; his defence that the cheques were misused by his partner therefore fails.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

No illegality or irregularity was found in the findings of the Courts below which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶46

Key takeaways

The order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and proportionate.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — signatures of the accused on the dishonoured cheques (Exs.P1, P2), the loan agreement (Ex.P5) and the On Demand Promissory Note (Ex.P6) not in dispute — presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act held unrebutted; defence that the cheques were misused by the accused's partner and that no amount was borrowed rejected — conviction and sentence (fine of Rs.10,05,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for six months) held just and proportionate — Revision Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.464 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRIHARI N. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.38, SRI SRINIVASA, PRASHANTHI NILAYAM, INDUSTRIAL LINE, SIDDARTH SCHOOL ROAD, KAMAKASHIPALYA EXTENSION BENGALURU - 560079.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NISCHAY S.P. AMICUS CURIAE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

R. HAREESH

¶14

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

¶15

S/O M.K. RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. G-16/48 ABBAYANNA STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU - 560004.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SURESHA, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE XII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.14802/2014 DATED 23.11.2015 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.1500/2015 DATED 10.02.2017.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Accused is before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 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.14802/2014 dated 23.11.2015 passed by the Court of XII A.C.M.M., Bangalore and the Judgment and Order passed in Crl.A.No.1500/2015 dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Court of LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶31

Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.14802/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act').

¶32

It is the case of the respondent - complainant that petitioner who was his friend had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for personal needs and towards repayment of said amount, the cheques in question bearing No.029541 & 029547 dated 17.07.2013 and 29.07.2013 respectively, drawn on ICICI Bank, Vijaynagar Branch, Bangalore - 560 040, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each in favour of the respondent were issued by the petitioner. The said cheques, on presentation for realisation were dishonoured by the drawee bank. Thereafter, statutory legal notice was got issued on behalf of the complainant to the petitioner and since, the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheques in

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

question in spite of service of legal notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against him for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. In the said proceedings, petitioner who had entered appearance before the Trial Court had claimed to be tried. The respondent - complainant in order to substantiate his case had examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked nine documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence, petitioner had examined himself as D.W.1. However, no documents were got marked on his behalf. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.10,05,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that in order to prove his case, respondent - complainant had examined himself as P.W.1 and had produced nine documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9. Exs.P1 and P2 are the cheques in question and Ex.P1(a) and P2(a) are the signature of the

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

petitioner on the said cheques. Ex.P5 is the loan document executed between the petitioner and the respondent, and signatures of the petitioner on the loan document are marked as Ex.P5(a) to P5(d). Ex.P6 is the On Demand Promissory Note executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and signature of the petitioner on Ex.P6 are marked as Exs.P6(a) and P6(b). Though legal notice Ex.P7 was served on the petitioner, undisputedly he had not replied to the same. The signatures of the petitioner found in the cheques in question namely Exs.P1 and P2 are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Ex.P1 and P2 are drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained by him in ICICI Bank, Vijaynagar Branch, Bangalore. Therefore, presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I. Act. Unless, the petitioner rebuts the said presumption by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act.

¶40

In the present case, petitioner has set up a defence that

¶41

the cheques in question were misused by his partner and were handed over to the respondent who has initiated the present

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. According to the petitioner, he had not borrowed any amount from the respondent and the cheques which were misused by his partner Manjunath have been used by the complainant to initiate proceedings against him for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. In the case on hand, in addition to the cheques in question, the respondent - complainant has also produced loan agreement at Ex.P5 executed by the petitioner in his favour. Signatures of

¶46

the petitioner found in the loan agreement are marked as Exs.P5(a) to P5(d). Ex.P6 is the On Demand Promissory Note executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. Signatures of the petitioner on Ex.P6 are marked as Exs.P6(a) and P6(b). The aforesaid signatures of the petitioner found in Ex.P5 loan agreement and Ex.P6 On Demand Promissory Note have not been disputed by him. Under the circumstances, the presumption that arose against the petitioner as aforesaid stands unrebutted and therefore, the Courts below are fully justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings of the Courts below

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and proportionate. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition.

¶51