- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 450 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. B.L. ABHINAY S/O B.D.LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT D1, RAMANAHALLI POLICE QUARTERS RAMANAHALLI CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKAS M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H. ANNAIAH S/O HARI RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT GIRINAGARA NEW EXTENSION RAMANAHALLI CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.151/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ALSO JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 19.03.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.897/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., CHIKKAMAGALURU. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the finding of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner had availed loan of Rs.1,95,000/- an also considering the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 even the deduction of Rs.69,600/- and convicted the petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,25,400/-. The First Appellate Court on re-assessing the material on record, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of the PW1 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and First Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that there is an admission on the part - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 of PW1 during the course of cross-examination that transaction between the defendant and accused except these two transaction of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.85,000/- there was no any transaction and also when the answer was elicited from the mouth of PW1 for having received the amount of Rs.69,600/-, though the same is given deduction in the finding, the very specific case of the petitioner that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- only and repaid the same with interest in total to the tune of Rs.69,600/- and also counsel would contend that when the answer was elicited from the mouth of PW1 regarding payment of Rs.69,600/- and he says the same is in respect of different transaction and when he has given only the two transaction for Rs.1,95,000/- and the very contention that the said amount of Rs.69,600/- was paid towards Rs.60,000/- has availed loan is very clear that only loan transaction was Rs.60,000/-, not more than that and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and committed an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 error in accepting the document of Ex.P1-Cheque for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. 3. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts taken note of the document of Cheque and admitted the signature available in Cheque –Ex.P1 and also taken note of discussion made in paragraph No.17 of the Trial Court order, even deduction of Rs.69,600/- having received and the same was acknowledged and also taken note of when the notice was issued and the same was served, he has not given any reply and if really knows the very transaction of Rs.1,95,000/- as contended by the petitioner, ought to have given the reply and no such reply was given and only false defense was taken during the cross-examination that he has availed only Rs.60,000/- and not availed the loan of Rs.1,95,000/-. 4. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court discussion made by the First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.11 and 13 to 15 and re-assessed the material and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 when there was an admission for having received the Cheque for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and he had given the deduction and the same is discussed in paragraph No.16 also. The very contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error cannot be accepted and both the Courts have given the finding and the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1. The counsel also would submits that with regard to the availing of Rs.60,000/-, no defense evidence has been elicited except the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 for having paid the amount and ought to have rebutted the evidence of complainant by adducing evidence if really he had availed loan only for Rs.60,000/- and no such defense evidence is placed. 5. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also considering the material on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 1) Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner and confirming the order and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? 2) What Order? 6. Having considered the grounds urged by the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel for the respondent and also on perusal of material on record, it is not in dispute that Cheque-Ex.P1 was issued by the petitioner and also not disputes the same. No doubt in the cross-examination counsel brought to notice of this Court having paid an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. There is an admission on the part of PW1 and also there is an admission on the part with regard to payment of Rs.69,600/-. The defense of the petitioner is that he had received only an amount of Rs.60,000/- and not an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. In order to substantiate his contention that having received only an amount Rs.60,000/-, no material is placed and there is an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 admission for having issued the Cheque. Apart from that when the defense was taken that he had only received Rs.60,000/- and he did not enter into the witness box. In order to substantiate his contention that he had received only Rs.60,000/- no material is placed and no doubt he had repaid the amount of Rs.69,600/- and there is an admission, but only his contention that he has paid the amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest in total Rs.69,600/- and same was also taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and those case was filed for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- after deducting the amount what the admission was given by the PW1 and the same is considered both by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court and after deducting the same only allowed the complaint partly. I have already pointed out that if really he availed the loan of Rs.60,000/- only and when the notice was served on him, immediately he would have given the reply stating that he had received only an amount of Rs.60,000/- and not Rs.1,95,000/- and he kept quite when the notice was served and when the defense - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 was set-out, he has only availed Rs.60,000/-, no plausible evidence is placed before the Court having received only an amount of Rs.60,000/-, but the fact that Cheque was issued and admitted the signature is not in dispute and what made him to execute a Cheque for an amount Rs.1,95,000/-, no explanation is given by the petitioner and when such being the case, no plausible evidence is placed before the Court with regard to his defense is concerned and also not lead any defense evidence before the Trial Court and when both the Courts accepted the evidence of PW1 regarding payment of part amount and after deducting the same only given the finding. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence and there is no any perversity in finding. Though counsel brought to notice of this Court, an admission that except these two transaction, but the fact that he had repaid an amount of Rs.69,600/- is not in dispute. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that in respect of filing of complaint against Rs.1,45,000/- against one Mr.Sathish - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 and having compromised the same for an amount of Rs.60,000/- also to be taken note of. Merely because there is an admission in respect of other case is concerned and the contention of the petitioner’s counsel cannot be accepted and when the Cheque was issued in terms of Ex.P1 and presumption could be drawn. There is no dispute with regard to presumption is rebuttable presumption, but no rebuttable evidence is placed before the Court except the eliciting the answer of repayment to the tune of Rs.69,600/- and the same is also considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court also given the reasoning that there was no any reply when the notice was served and defense was taken only after thought. With regard to the availing of loan for an amount Rs.60,000/- no plausible evidence is placed. In the absence of any preponderance of probabilities, contention of the petitioner’s counsel cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any error in passing an order and admission to the effect that payment was made also given deduction and no perverse finding by Trial Court and First Appellate Court. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8875 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2022 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64