Dismissed¶35

Ramesh v. Chikkanna

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026CRL.RP/97/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC 2026 CRL.RP 97/2023 dismissed; S.138 NI Act conviction upheld in revision; S.139 presumption unrebutted; defence must be probable not merely plausible; chit-transaction security cheque defence rejected; cheque 812073 Canara Bank Baraguru; fine Rs.2,10,000 default 6 months SIM; appeal confirmation affirmed; S.397/401 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner's signature on the cheque (Ex.P1) and the drawee account were undisputed, a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act arose against him; unless rebutted by a probable defence, he was liable to be convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. ¶31

Ramesh Vs Chikkanna — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence in CC No.308/2017 (confirmed in Crl.A.No.41/2022) should be allowed or the impugned judgments upheld. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The Trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the Appellate Court, having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly confirmed the conviction and sentence.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

¶31

Key takeaways

A defence put forward by an accused must be probable, not merely plausible, to rebut the presumption; the petitioner produced no documentary or other material in support of his chit-security defence, so the defence failed.ratio¶32
The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court (fine of Rs.2,10,000/- with default simple imprisonment of six months), as confirmed by the Appellate Court, is just and appropriate.ratio¶35
No good ground exists to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence; accordingly the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C.), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.), 13.01.2026 - Dismissed. Accused-petitioner sought setting aside of his conviction under S.138 NI Act in CC No.308/2017 (Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sira, 11.07.2022; fine Rs.2,10,000/-, default six months' simple imprisonment) as confirmed in Crl.A.No.41/2022 (VI Addl. D&S Judge, Tumkur, 28.11.2022). Complaint rested on an alleged Rs.2,00,000/- hand loan repaid by cheque No.812073 drawn on Canara Bank, Baraguru Branch, dishonoured with remark 'funds insufficient', followed by a legal notice dated 02.11.2016. Signature on the cheque and the drawee account being undisputed, the S.139 presumption operated; the accused's sole defence - that the cheque was security for a chit transaction between the complainant and his father - was unsupported by any documentary evidence and failed the test that the defence must be probable, not merely plausible. The appellate court's re-appreciation of the evidence was held right, and the confirmed sentence just and appropriate; no ground to interfere, revision dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 97 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMESH S/O LATE R.J. DIBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O LAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DIST. 572 113.

¶8

&PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MANJUNATH T.M, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

CHIKKANNA

¶12

S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT LAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DIST - 572 113.

¶13

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

¶14

&RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.41/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AGAINST THIS PETITIONER.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to setaside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.308/2017 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira dated 11.07.2022 and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.41/2022 by the Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur dated 28.11.2022.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act' for short), in CC No.308/2017 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira. In the said proceedings, the Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2,10,000/- 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 in CC No.308/2017 has been confirmed in

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Crl.A.No.41/2022 by the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that according to respondent/complainant, petitioner, who is his acquaintance, had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question bearing No.812073 drawn on Canara Bank, Baraguru Branch was issued in his favour. The said cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant had got issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 02.11.2016 and in spite of service of the said notice, petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the said cheuqe in question. It is under these circumstances, respondent/complainant had initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the N. I. Act.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

In support of his case, respondent/complainant has examined himself as PW1 and got marked seven documents as Ex.P1 to P7. The signature of the petitioner in the cheque in question at Ex.P1 is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that Ex.P1 was drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained by him in Canara Bank, Baraguru Branch, Tumkur. Therefore, a presumption arises against petitioner under Section 139 of the N. I. Act and unless, he rebuts the same by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act.

¶32

According to the petitioner, there was a chit transaction between the respondent and his father and towards security of the chit transaction, the cheque in question was issued by him. In support of his defence, petitioner has not produced any material before the Trial Court. It is trite that defence put forward by the accused should be probable and not plausible so as to rebut the presumption that arises against the accused. No documentary evidence is produced by the petitioner in support of the defence set-up by him. It is under these circumstances,

¶33

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1961 CRL.RP No. 97 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the Trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Even the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court is just and appropriate. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed .

¶36

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Ramesh v. Chikkanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. Chikkanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State by Sarguru Police Station Vs Devendra Kumar Soni

Sri Siddegowda Vs Sri Ravindra Agarwal

Tejash Vs State by Kolar Town Ps

Mr. Mehaboobali @ Mehabubali Vs Ms. S G Jagadeesha

Mr Poojarappa P Vs State by

Sri. a. Krishna Vs Sri. C. a. Varadaraju