Dismissed¶43

Sri. Dyamanna Fakkirappa v. Sri. Udaya Shankar Shetty

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2026CRL.RP/623/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2026:KHC:11083; CRL.RP 623/2019; S.138 NI Act conviction upheld in revision; cheque No.025235 dt.20.10.2013 Rs.7,00,000 Axis Bank dishonoured 'funds insufficient'; presumption S.139 r/w 118 N.I. Act not rebutted; defence inconsistent and not probablised; construction payments Rs.34,20,000; fine Rs.8,05,000 default SI 6 months; revision U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C dismissed; complainant allowed to withdraw deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner/accused, and the Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court Records. ¶43

Sri. Dyamanna Fakkirappa Vs Sri. Udaya Shankar Shetty — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:11083 CRL.RP No. 623 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 623 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. DYAMANNA FAKKIRAPPA GIRIYAPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A DOOR NO.410, GROUND FLOOR, 11^TH CROSS, RASHI RESIDENCY, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, KADABAGERE (POST) BENGALURU NORTH - 562 130.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY Ms.NEHA VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUDHARSHAN SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. UDAYA SHANKAR SHETTY S/O SANJEEVA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A 'MANTRI GREENS', A-204, SAMPIGE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 003

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.S.GURUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.A.SOMANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO (a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11083 CRL.RP No. 623 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND ORDER DATED 16.02.2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.232/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.02.2016 PASSED IN C.C. NO.22902/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ACMM BENGALURU, ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,

¶22

THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is before this Court in this Criminal 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 dated 01.02.2016 passed in C.C.No.22902 of 2014 by the Court of XIII ACMM, Bengaluru and the judgment and order dated 16.02.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.232 of 2016 by the Court of LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11083 CRL.RP No. 623 of 2019

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

It is the case of the respondent/complainant

¶30

that the petitioner who is acquainted to him had approached him to construct a residential building in a property bearing No.404, 11^th Cross, 'Rashi Residency', Segehalli Gate, Magadi Road, Bengaluru. Accordingly, the respondent had commenced construction of the building for the petitioner and had totally received a sum of Rs.34,20,000/- from the petitioner. Towards the balance amount payable, the petitioner had issued cheque bearing No.025235 dated 20.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/drawn on Axis Bank, Cauvery Bhavan Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque on presentation for realization was dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the respondent got issued legal notice to the petitioner, which was duly served. Inspite of service of notice, petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question and therefore, the complainant/respondent initiated proceedings against the accused/petitioner for the offence punishable under

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11083 CRL.RP No. 623 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said proceedings, the Trial Court vide order dated 01.02.2016 in C.C.No.22902 of 2014 had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.8,05,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in Crl.A.No.232 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2019 by the First Appellate Court. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

The complainant, in order to substantiate his case before the Trial Court had examined himself as PW-1. The cheque in question was marked as Ex.P1. The signature of the petitioner on the said cheque was not disputed and it is also not in dispute that the cheque in question was drawn on the Bank account of the petitioner. Therefore, there is a presumption available against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 r/w 118 of the

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11083 CRL.RP No. 623 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

N.I. Act. Unless, this presumption is rebutted by the petitioner by taking probable defence, petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent has been proved by the respondent by producing Ex.P7-Estimation of house construction; Ex.P8proposed plan and Ex.P9-Estimation of the construction dated 15.02.2013. Exs.P10 and P11 are the statement of estimation of the house belonging to the petitioner.

¶38

Petitioner has taken a defence before the Trial

¶39

Court that the cheque in question was issued to the respondent who had undertaken to complete the balance work of the building. According to the petitioner, without completing the balance work, the cheque in question was presented for realization. The defence raised by the petitioner was not probablised by him by producing necessary oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court. The petitioner has taken inconsistent defence before the Trial Court. It is under these circumstances,

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:11083 CRL.RP No. 623 of 2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the Trial Court has held that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him as provided under Section 139 r/w 118 of the N.I. Act and has convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶43

The First Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and appropriate. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

¶44

The respondent/complainant is permitted to

¶45

withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner/accused.

¶46

Registry to forthwith return the Trial Court Records.

¶47

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶48

DH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri. Dyamanna Fakkirappa v. Sri. Udaya Shankar Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dyamanna Fakkirappa v. Sri. Udaya Shankar Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kotramma Vs Thimmappa U

Mr. Siddiq Ur Rehman Vs the State of Karnataka

Sattar Baig Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveen R Vs Mr. Keerthi

Sri. M G Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Fulgent Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jagruthi Electronic Technologies