- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1273 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. M.V. NATARAJAN S/O. VENKATARAMAN AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.496, ITC ROAD R S PALYA BEHIND JAYALAKSHMI SCHOOL, BENGALURU - 560033 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKAR M NAIK.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BABU RAO MUDABI S/O. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.281, 4TH CROSS, RMV 2ND STAGE SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560094 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.N.K.HARISH., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2020 PASSED BY THE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-68) IN CRL.A.NO.1590/2018 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2017 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.15653/2014 AND THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER The matter is listed for admission. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. 3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the Trial Court is that the petitioner and complainant were known to each other for the last 10 - 12 years. On account of well acquainted with each other, the accused had approached the complainant and requested financial assistance for an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- on 20.09.2013 for his business purpose and accordingly, the complainant has advanced an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash and that he has agreed to repay the said amount within six months. After lapse of stipulated time and repeated requests, he had - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 issued the cheque dated 21.10.2013 and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds'. The complainant informed the said fact to the accused and accused has not responded and hence, issued legal notice on 04.01.2014 by way of registered post demanding to repay the said amount within 15 days and the same was duly served upon him on 07.01.2014. Despite the service of legal notice, the accused neither repaid the amount nor gave reply, hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. Accused did not plead guilty and hence, the trial was commenced and the complainant in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 13. The accused also examined himself as DW.1 and he set up the defence that both the complainant and accused entered into a joint venture and in that connection he gave cheque - Ex.P1 and also given the title documents of properties as security and Trial Court having taken note of evidence of PW.1 and documentary evidence - Exs.P1 to 13 and also evidence of DW.1 and as no documents were produced by the petitioner, come to the conclusion that defence theory cannot be accepted and complainant has proved - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 the transaction by producing the documents Exs.P1 to P8 and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.45,75,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, directing to pay an amount of Rs.45,75,000/- the accused filed an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court after having reconsidered the material on record and also oral and documentary evidence come to the conclusion that defenbce set up by the accused is not reliable and justifiable in nature, since he has not produced documentary evidence so as to prove the fact that he has entered into a joint venture and in that connection he has given cheque and title deeds. Without being any liability, why the cheque and title deeds have been issued to the complainant is not explained by the accused and hence come to the conclusion that the Trial Court not committed any error in convicting him and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant in order to substantiate his case, except the cheque, not produced any oral evidence or documentary evidence to prove that he has lent huge sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the accused. There was no such transaction and also counsel vehemently contended that the complainant neither in his complaint nor in his evidence stated about the capacity to lend a huge amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. He contends that though he got marked absolute sale deed dated 18.12.2014 - Ex.P8 executed by his mother - Smt.Gundamma in favour of M/s.New Address Construction and also produced IT returns - Ex.P7 of his mother to show the availability of the amount which the complainant lent to the accused but he has not examined his mother to substantiate his case. But both the Trial Court and Appellate Court fails to consider the said documents. The counsel also vehemently contends that when specific defence is taken that in connection with joint venture - Ex.P1 cheque was given, both the Courts failed to consider the said fact. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that though such defence was taken - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 that there was joint venture between complainant and accused, no documents are placed before the Court. Though it is contended that the said joint venture was cancelled, nothing placed on record regarding cancellation also and he did not explain what made him to give cheque, if he has not borrowed money and also why he has handed over title deeds of his property and no explanation is forthcoming and same has been considered by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. No probable defence is set out to prove the same and both the Courts considered the said facts with regard to the joint venture and except the self styled evidence, nothing is placed on record and hence, there is no need to interfere with the findings of both the Courts below. 7. Having heard petitioner's counsel and also the counsel appearing for respondent, it is the specific case of the complainant that on account of well acquainted with each other for last 10 to 12 years, the accused has approached the complainant and requested for financial assistance for an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and same was lent on 20.09.2013 for his business purpose and he did not repay the same and though counsel for the petitioner contends that he was only a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 carpenter, and no need of such money, but in the cross- examination, he categorically stated that he is the owner of JNS builders and developers and hence, it is clear that he was doing business of JNS Builders and Developers and hence, his contention that he was only a carpenter cannot be accepted and also in chief-examination, he has categorically admitted that there was joint venture entered and at that time, he has issued two signed cheques for the security purpose along with cheque in question and original title deeds of the property which are marked as Ex.P9 and 10 and said joint venture came to be cancelled and when he was requested for return of cheques, and original title deeds, the complainant has said that they were misplaced, and hence, he gave complaint on 23.07.2014 and paper publication on 27.07.2014. But during the cross-examination he deposed that joint venture was cancelled and there was no iota of documents that he was issued two signed blank cheuqes and for the security purpose, he has issued valuable documents. But he again admits that he gave the paper publication that cheques were lost. In order to prove the factum of entering into joint venture by both the complainant and accused, nothing is placed on record, except - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 self styled evidence, no document are placed before the Court. In the cross-examination of PW.1 nothing is elicited with regard to the issuance of cheque in connection with entering into joint venture and there is no effective cross-examination with regard to said defence is concerned and also PW.1 admits that Exs.P1 to P8 are in connection with income tax returns, Ex.P8 is a sale deed executed by mother of complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.94,01,175/- and in between 2013 to 2014 received an amount of Rs.54,31,563/-, when such material is placed before the Trial Court, the same has not been rebutted by the accused placing any document and there is no preponderance of probability in order to accept the contention of the petitioner. Considering the material placed on record by the complainant, the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court, and as there is no explanation is forthcoming with regard to issuance of cheques and handing over original documents to the complainant, both the Courts have held that the defence set up by the accused is not reliable and not justifiable in nature and since accused has not produced any documents or evidence so as to prove the fact that he has entered into joint venture and issued cheques and title deeds in that regard, I do - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5526 CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021 not find any infirmity or illegality or perversity in the finding given by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. This Court can exercise review jurisdiction, only when the finding is not legal and if any infirmity in the findings of Trial Court as well as Appellate Court and when there is no illegality in the findings given by the both the courts, the question of exercising review jurisdiction does not arise and hence, I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31