- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2018 BETWEEN: RAJKUMAR S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SPANDANA NILAYA, VINAYAKA NAGARA, SHIKARIPURA - 577 427. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.G. PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: BASAVARAJA S/O S SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, LIC ADVISOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O CHANNAKESHAVA NAGARA, SHIKARIPURA TOWN/TALUK - 577 427. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.53/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE- Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018 A AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 04.06.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIKARIPURA IN C.C.NO.225/2017 (C.C.NO.416/2016) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 02.11.2018 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in Crl.A.no.53/2018 and also to set aside judgment and sentence dated 04.06.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shikaripura, Shivamogga District in C.C.no.225/2017, this Revision Petition is filed. 2. Sri N.G.Parameshwarappa, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent (complainant) filed a Private Complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against petitioner (accused) alleging that he was very well acquainted with accused since 2004. Therefore, on 11.12.2015, when accused asked him for hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for business purposes, he lent it based on assurance that his wife had invested huge amount of money in 'Shrinidhi Associates', which - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018 was likely to be settled within one month and immediately accused would repay hand loan. 3. But, after three months, when he demanded repayment, accused issued cheque no.824918 dated 16.03.2016 drawn on State Bank of Mysore for Rs.3,50,000/-. Said cheque when presented for collection was returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter even when registered demand notice was issued to accused on 06.04.2016 and served on 12.04.2016, accused failed to return amount thereby giving rise to cause of action for prosecution for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'ACT'). 4. On service of summons, accused appeared and pleaded to be tried. Complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. Apart from complainant, Bank Manager was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused denied all incriminating material/circumstances. He examined himself as D.W.1, but did not mark any documents. It was submitted though accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018 had urged substantial defences such as denying his signature on cheque, absence of legally recoverable debt between complainant and accused, cheques were issued as security to one Kashinath, who was running a Finance Company and on ground that one more cheque bounce case filed by Kashinath against accused had ended in dismissal etc. It was submitted, trial Court without proper appreciation of material on record, convicted accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.3,80,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved, accused had preferred Criminal Appeal urging various grounds reiterating his contentions. However, without appreciation, appeal was dismissed leading to this Revision. 5. Learned counsel, firstly, submitted there was no proof of legally recoverable debt. Accused had not borrowed any amount from complainant, in fact, accused had issued 9 cheques to Kashinath, as security for amount borrowed. Complainant had obtained one cheque from Kashinath and filed present case without any transactional relationship. Hence, on above grounds, impugned orders were required to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018 It was submitted, in fact, similar prosecution by Kashinath against accused, in respect of another cheque, had ended in dismissal substantiating petitioner's defence. On said ground, sought for allowing Revision Petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent. Perused material available on record. 7. From above, it is seen this Revision Petition is by accused against concurrent findings. Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ravi v. State of T.N., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, explained scope of Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. and held it to be normally confined to findings, suffering from perversity or being contrary to provisions of Statute. 8. Main grounds urged by petitioner are non-existence of legally recoverable debt, as cheque in question was issued to Kashinath, running a Finance Company, denying his signature on cheque and about dismissal of another case filed by Kashinath against him. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018 9. While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court observed particulars of transaction between complainant and accused i.e., for borrowing a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from complainant on 11.12.20215 and issuing of cheque in question for repayment thereof. Though, accused denied signature, Bank Manager, examined as P.W.2 confirmed signature of accused on Ex.P1 - cheque tallied with his signature in Bank records. 10. Apart from same, contention of accused that cheques were issued to Kashinath as security would admit his signature on cheque. Strangely to substantiate his contention, accused has not examined Kashinath or produced any material to substantiate his transactional relationship with Kashinath and about issuance of cheque to him. Therefore, petitioner's contention that finding of both Courts suffered from perversity on said count would not hold any water. 11. Insofar as other case filed by Kashinath against accused herein being dismissed, same would not come to aid of accused as cause of action was on some other cheque. In any case, said judgment is not made part of present record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018 12. In view of above, since findings of both Courts are based on material on record and arrived after due reasoning, I do not find any error or perversity calling for interference. Revision Petition is without merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK