- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48760 CRL.RP No. 1636 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1636 OF 2023 BETWEEN: KRISHNA SHETTY S/O GOPAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT ORP NEW STYLE COLLECTIONS NEW STYLE COLLECTIONS NEAR ZAKIR COLELCTIONS MARODI ROAD, NARAVI - 574 109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE) AND: AVIN ENTERPRISES, D NO 13-1-15/6 TO 9, KELLE COURT, P M RAO ROAD MANGALURU, REP BY ITS PARTNER VINOD D SOUZA, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O GILBERT D SOUZA, R/AT LOVELYN MARIA NAGAR, JEPPUR CROSS ROAD, MANGALURU - 575 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.54/2023 DATED 29.09.2023 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 14.02.2023 IN C.C.NO.481/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC V COURT, MANGALURU AND TO DIRECT THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48760 CRL.RP No. 1636 of 2023 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 29.09.2023 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.no.54/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2023 passed by learned Court of JMFC (V-Court), Mangaluru, in C.C.no.481/2016, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Jeevan K., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition is filed challenging concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that complainant was a wholesale dealer of readymade textile and accused was Proprietor of a shop - New Style Collection and was regular customer of complainant. That on 12.08.2014, accused had purchased readymade garments - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48760 CRL.RP No. 1636 of 2023 worth Rs.34,024/- on credit basis under bill no.LG004330; for Rs.75,000/- on 03.10.2014 under bill no.LG005759 and for Rs.92,197/- under bill no.LG005760 i.e. in all material worth Rs.2,01,898/-. 3. It was further submitted that accused had undertaken to make payment for same within period of 2 days but, failed to make payment. On demand, accused had made part payment of Rs.20,000/- on 09.10.2014 and in month of February 2016, issued cheque bearing no.485667 dated 11.02.2016 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Naravi Branch for Rs.1,81,898/-, which on presentation, returned with endorsement dated 15.02.2016 as 'exceeds arrangement' and thereafter even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 18.02.2016 was served, accused had failed to repay amount and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. On appearance, accused denied charge and sought trial, in which, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P24. Thereafter, accused was appraised to incriminating material against him for purposes of recording - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48760 CRL.RP No. 1636 of 2023 his statement under Section 313 of CrPC. Accused denied incriminating material. Since he had substantiated his defence, in cross-examination of PW.1, he did not choose to lead oral evidence. 5. It was submitted, accused had contended that there was no transactional relationship between accused and complainant and that Ex.P1 - cheque was not established to be clearance of any legally enforceable debt. It was submitted, accused's shop and business were closed in year 2017. It was submitted, computerized ledger extracts as Exs.P7, P9 and P11 etc., did not bear signature of accused and were created for purposes of case. Above facts would establish that without any basis, complaint was filed and without verification, both Courts had convicted accused. It was further submitted that PW.1 examined on behalf of complainant was not duly authorized to depose on behalf of complainant and therefore his deposition could not be accepted. Consequently, order of conviction would be without basis. 6. On other hand, Miss Prasanna K., learned counsel appearing for Sri Chandranath Ariga K., advocate for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48760 CRL.RP No. 1636 of 2023 complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted that both Courts, at time of passing impugned judgments had duly appreciated all facts and circumstances as well as material on record and arrived at well reasoned conclusion which did not calls for interference. Insofar as contention that PW.1 was not authorized to depose on behalf of complainant, learned counsel drew attention of this Court to letter of authorization marked as Ex.P6. It was further submitted, Exs.P7, P9 - ledger extracts etc., themselves would indicate that they were accompanied with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ('Act', for short) and as such their veracity was established. 7. Insofar as cheque given as security, there was no material to establish that cheque was earlier obtained by complainant as security and same was misused for purpose of this complaint. On other hand, it would amount to an admission about signature of accused on cheque, attracting presumption available to holder. It was submitted, both Courts had duly appreciated said contention and there was no scope for interference in revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48760 CRL.RP No. 1636 of 2023 8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and trial Court record. 9. At outset, it is seen, this revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held that scope for interference by High Court in a revision petition against concurrent findings would be limited to examining whether findings suffer from perversity or whether they are in contravention of any statutory provision. Insofar as contention about absence of any material to establish relationship of creditor and debtor and about due execution of Ex.P1 - cheque, it is seen, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court has noted that complainant had made unequivocal statement about accused being involved in business. While complainant was a manufacturer of readymade textile and accused was seller of such goods. He has also stated about specific dates on which accused made purchases. Copies of bills raised and ledger - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48760 CRL.RP No. 1636 of 2023 extracts are produced as Exs.P7, P9, P11 as well as Exs.P21 to 24 and tax invoices as Exs.P16 to P18. 10. Ledgers are maintained in course of business would constitute sufficient proof unless contrary is established. Though contention is urged that ledger extracts not bearing counter signatures, extracts are accompanied with certificate under Section 65B of Act. It is also seen that nothing contradictory is elicited in cross-examination of PW.1 so as to discredit said record. Moreover, accused had also adopted defence that cheque was issued as security for earlier transaction. Same would amount to admission of signature on cheque in question, attracting presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. 11. It is seen, during cross-examination of PW.1, suggestions are made by accused that Exs.P16, 17 and 18 are created and said suggestions are denied. It is settled law that merely by making suggestions, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, cannot be upset. It is also seen, in his deposition accused admitted he had not issued reply to demand notice got issued by complainant and accused did not step into witness- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48760 CRL.RP No. 1636 of 2023 box. These would lead to drawing of adverse inference against accused. Besides, it is seen that while passing impugned judgments, trial Court as well as Appellate Court have on independent appreciation, arrived at reasoned conclusions and same cannot be stated to be suffering from perversity. In view of above, revision petition is without merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45