Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20637

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V Srishananda, J
Jagadish – Appellant
Versus
B S Ravi – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1081 OF 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishi Pal Singh Varma
For the Respondents: Chandrashekar P Patil

The electronic generation of a cheque return memo does not require a physical seal or signature for validity under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and upon admission of signature, the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts the evidentiary burden to the accused to prove no debt existed.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138, 139, 146 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption of debt - Electronic clearing system - Validity of cheque return memo - Accused challenged conviction arguing bank memo lacked seal/signature and was invalid - Held, under current electronic clearance systems, physical seals/signatures are not mandatory - Absence of official stamp on a return memo does not invalidate trial under S.138 if dishonour is evidenced. (Paras 21, 27, 32)

(B) Evidence - Rebuttal of presumption - Once execution of cheque and signature are admitted, presumption under S.118 and S.139 arises against the drawer - Burden lies on accused to produce sufficient rebuttal evidence - Accused failing to initiate criminal action for alleged misuse or summon bank officials to prove insolvency is fatal to his defence. (Paras 35, 37, 40)

Facts of the case:
Complainant lent Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused in 2014. A post-dated cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The accused alleged the cheque was a blank security cheque issued to a society, not the complainant, and challenged the validity of the bank memo for lack of wet-ink certification.

Findings of Court:
Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrent findings confirmed. The accused admitted the signature on the cheque and failed to rebut the presumption of legal debt through convincing evidence or bank cross-examination.

Issues: Whether the absence of a bank's official seal/signature on an electronically generated cheque return memo invalidates a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act; whether the presumption under S.139 was successfully rebutted.

Ratio Decidendi: The electronic generation of cheque return memos renders physical seals/signatures non-mandatory; where the signature is admitted, the statutory presumption under S.139 NI Act heavily favors the complainant unless the accused provides compelling evidence to the contrary.

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial facts and concurrent findings of lower courts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
2. arguments concerning the validity of electronic cheque return memos. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. court rules electronic return memos are valid without physical stamps. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. application of statutory presumption under section 139 ni act. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 09.08.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.1154/2016, BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF LXVIII CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, CCH-69, AT BANGALORE FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT AGAINST PETITIONER AND JUDGMENT DATED 21.09.2016 IN C.C.NO.3975/2015, BEFORE THE HON'BLE 13TH ACMM, BANGALORE AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FROM THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Rishi Pal Singh Varma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Chandrashekar P.Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(A to C).

2. Accused who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.3975/2018 confirmed in Crl.A.No.1154/2016 is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be lodged with the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by contending that complainant and the accused are acquainted with each other for several years.

4. Taking advantage of such acquaintance, accused said to have approached the complainant for financial assistance in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay the said loan amount within two months with interest at 16% per annum.

5. The complainant, considering the request of the accused lent the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash on 24.10.2014 which was duly acknowledged by the accused and after receipt of the amount, accused failed to repay the same as agreed.

6. On persistent demands, accused said to have issued a post dated cheque bearing No.643006 dated 24.11.2014 in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, West of Chord Road Branch, Bengaluru, which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ on 26.11.2014. Accused was demanded to pay the said amount by issuing a legal notice.

7. Despite service of notice, there was no compliance to the callings of the notice and therefore, complainant has sought for action.

8. On receipt of the complaint, learned Trial Magistrate summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record seven documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7, comprising of cheque, bank endorsement, notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgment, complaint and letter.

10. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and placed on record fourteen documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.14 comprising of letters, receipts, notice, reply notice, postal acknowledgment, blank cheque (original), statement of account, Xerox copy of the cheque and endorsement.

11. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Cr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20637

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAV Srishananda, JJagadish – AppellantVersusB S Ravi – RespondentCRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1081 OF 2018

Cases Referred (2)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V Srishananda, J
Jagadish – Appellant
Versus
B S Ravi – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1081 OF 2018