- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 501 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MOHAMMED RAFI (MUNNA) S/O MOHIDDIN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.2/54, 9TH CROSS NACHANAHALLI PALYA MYSURU – 67. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T. SHANKARALINGAM S/O THILLAI NAYAGAM AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 2ND STAGE KHB COLONY, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU – 78. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.N.A.RAM, ADVOCATE – [ABSENT]) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.204/2019 AND JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.417/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent on the previous occasion and today also, learned counsel for the respondent is absent. Hence, heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This criminal revision petition is filed against the order of the Trial Court convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to pay fine amount Rs.2,60,000/- and also against the concurrent finding of the First Appellate Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts committed an error in accepting the case of the complainant and wrongly appreciated the material which have been placed before the Court. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that the complainant, who has been - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 examined as P.W.1 categorically admits that he was getting pension of Rs.15,000/-. Apart from that, he was not having any other source of income and contend that the very case of the complainant cannot be believed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same has been repaid in the year 2011 and therefore, without there being legal debt, false complaint has been filed. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider the material on record and committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RAJESH JAIN VS. AJAY SINGH reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.35 and 40 and contend that when the revision petitioner led defence evidence and placed the document of exhibit ‘D’ series that the petitioner lend money and filed the case against borrowers, number of documents are also placed and answers are elicited from the mouth of P.W.1. The material is also placed before the Court that there is preponderance of probability regarding the case of the petitioner and probable defence has been raised - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 by placing document, inspite of it, both the Courts committed an error and convicted the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the grounds which have been urged in the revision petition, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in concurring with the order passed by the Trial Court and it requires interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? 7. Having considered the grounds urged as well as the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has to take note of the averments made in the complaint. The specific averment made by the complainant in the complaint is that petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the repayment of loan borrowed by the complainant and issued a Cheque in the month of May, 2011. He had promised that the Cheque would be honoured, but the same was dishonoured, when it was presented before the bank. Hence, legal notice was issued and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 reply was given. When he did not repay the amount, complaint was filed and the Trial Court taken cognizance and proceeded to conduct trial and accordingly, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the documents of Exhibit ‘P’ series and the revision petitioner also has been examined as D.W.1 and marked the documents of Exs.D1 to D31. The Trial Court considered the documents and the defence of the petitioner is that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- not Rs.2,00,000/- and the same was repaid and no transaction has taken place as contended by the petitioner and the Cheque was not returned on repayment and misused the same. Learned counsel also reiterates the same in his argument also. 8. Having considered the contention urged by the petitioner and also taking note of the defence of the complainant, he reiterated in his evidence that he got marked the documents of Exhibit ‘P’ series and reply was given and answer was elicited from P.W.1 that he was getting pension of Rs.15,000/- and he used to lend hand loan to his friends also other than accused. He also admits that he had filed three cases in Mysore Court and he was managing the family with the pension fund. Apart from that, relied upon Ex.P2 that he has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 received the retirement benefit and he gave the money in the month of May, 2011 and the accused gave the Cheque in terms of Ex.P1. It is also important to note that in the cross- examination, P.W.1 admits that he also lent money to one Muttumari and categorically admits that he had filed the case against Muttumari and other persons and document relied upon by the petitioner clearly disclose that financial transaction has taken place as per the documents produced by the respondent as Exhibit ‘P’ series. The main contention is that he did not had money to lend the same to other persons. But, the fact is that he has received the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the Cheque at Ex.P1 was given for Rs.2,00,000/-. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that amount was advanced to Mutthumari on 27.04.2011 i.e., an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the complainant had paid the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner from the amount of Rs.5,05,000/- which he had drawn from his S.B. Account on 20.04.2011. It is further contended that the said amount of Rs.5,05,000/- drawn from his S.B. Account on 20.04.2011 was also paid by the respondent to one Mutturaj on 27.04.2011 as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 could be seen from Ex.D31. The said contention cannot of the petitioner cannot be accepted merely because in Ex.D31, the amount of Rs.5,05,000/- is being reflected, it cannot be construed that the respondent had paid the said amount of Rs.5,05,000/- to said Mutthumari from the amount which he had drawn from S.B. Account on 20.04.2011. On perusal of averments in Ex.D31, nowhere it is stated that the respondent/complainant had paid the said amount of Rs.5,05,000/- to one Mutthumari from the amount drawn from his S.B. Account. Therefore, in the absence of any material evidence to substantiate the said act, the contention putforth by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 10. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he also categorically admits that complainant used to lend money to others also and also admits that both of them were working in Railway Department and one Mr. Manoj Kumar is known to him. But, he claimed that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2010 and paid the amount in 2011. But, in order to substantiate the said contention, this petitioner has not placed any material before the Court. It is also important to note that in the cross-examination, he - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 categorically admits that when he repaid the amount, except the complainant and family members belonging to his family, no other persons were there. In order to substantiate the fact that earlier there was transaction between the complainant and the petitioner, nothing is placed on record and even for having repaid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, no document is placed before the Court. He also further admits that he took money for his necessity, but again he says that he received the money in 2013-2014. One breath he says that he received the money in 2010 and claims that when amount was taken in 2013-204, he repaid the amount within six months. Hence, the petitioner is not firm about receipt of the amount i.e., it is only Rs.1,00,000/- or Rs.2,00,000/- and the Cheque pertains to the year 2012 and also admits that the amount was received in the year 2011 and repaid the same. But, for having repaid the same also, not having any document. 11. Apart from that, complainant has produced Ex.P2- Bank statement for having drawn the money from the bank and gave the money to the petitioner. When such material is placed before the Court for having the money to pay the amount and Cheque was also issued, the Trial Court also taken - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 note of the fact that presumption can be drawn, though petitioner relied upon the document of Exs.D1 to D31. The fact that complainant filed the case against other person cannot be a ground to come to an other conclusion. The fact that he had received the money of Rs.1,00,000/- is not in dispute. But, his contention is that not on the date of withdrawal of pensionary benefit in the year 2011, but in the year 2010. But in order to substantiate the said fact also, nothing is placed on record that he had borrowed the money in 2010 and repaid in 2011 and admission on the part of the petitioner clearly shows that he is not having any document and he was having money to repay the same. He only says that when he repaid, his family members were present. Mere production of document that the complainant filed several cases against other person cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case of the complainant and the same cannot be a probable case as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In order to prove the contention of the petitioner and substantiate his defence, he has to lead evidence and produce the documents of preponderance of probability and no such preponderance of probability is found, except stating that - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 he repaid the amount and the fact that Ex.P1-Cheque was disputed is not in dispute. Though it is not in respect of this transaction and in respect of other transaction and there were other transaction with the petitioner and the complainant, no such material is placed before the Court. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and no ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has taken note of said fact into consideration. Even though Rs.5,00,000/- is given to one Mutthumari and the same is not the payment out of the amount which he had drawn and the First Appellate Court has taken note of said fact and mere drawing of money and advancing the amount in favour of Mutthumari and made use the same cannot be accepted. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has not committed any error in appreciating the material on record. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and it does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) as ‘negative’. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2370 CRL.RP No. 501 of 2020 Point No.(ii) 13. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50