- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48829 CRL.RP No. 246 of 2025 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. 246 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI P GIRISH, S/O PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT OPP. KONAMARIYAMMA TEMPLE, NEAR GOWDA SAMAJA, KUSHALNAGAR TOWN, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHARAN KUMAR K V., ADVOCATE) AND: D R SATHISH, S/O KULLE GOWDA @ RAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT DODDATHUR VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.10/2020 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHALNAGAR IN C.C.NO.224/2016, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT AND SENTENCING THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PAY A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,50,000/- (RUPEES FOUR LAKH FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) AND IN DEFAULT OF THE PAYMENT OF THE FINE AMOUNT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48829 CRL.RP No. 246 of 2025 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 29.10.2022 passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, in Crl.A.no.10/2020 confirming judgment dated 30.01.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar, in C.C.no.224/2026, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Charan Kumar KV, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that this revision petition was against concurrent erroneous findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant on 08.08.2015 agreeing to repay same within six months and had issued cheque no.349724 dated 08.02.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48829 CRL.RP No. 246 of 2025 on State Bank of India, Kushalnagar Branch, which when presented for payment, returned with endorsement as 'insufficient funds' and despite service of demand notice got issued by complainant, accused failed to repay or reply and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charge and sought trial. Whereupon complainant deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. On being informed about incriminating material, accused denied same and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Accused did not choose to examine any witnesses on his behalf. It was submitted, though accused had taken up various defences and substantiated them in cross-examination of PW.1, trial Court without justification or proper appreciation convicted accused. Even when same was challenged in appeal, it was dismissed without proper re-appreciation, leading to this revision. 5. It was submitted, there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between accused and complainant and that cheque in question was issued to one Manjunath, who appears - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48829 CRL.RP No. 246 of 2025 to have handed it over to complainant and in-turn had misused same, filed present proceedings. 6. It was submitted, accused had also disputed financial capacity of complainant to have lent such amount to accused, especially when complainant had not filed IT returns or any acknowledgement of receipt of loan amount. It was submitted, it would cast serious doubt about manner of transaction between accused and complainant and probabilizing defence. It was submitted, failure to consider above factors rendered findings leading to conviction of accused as perverse calling for interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused impugned judgments. Respondent is served but, un- represented. 8. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground that same suffers from perversity. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48829 CRL.RP No. 246 of 2025 9. First contention is about complainant failing to establish that Ex.P1 - cheque was issued towards repayment of legally enforceable debt. Though, it is contended that complainant failed to produce Income Tax Returns or acknowledgment for having received amount lent, it is seen that accused claimed to have issued signed cheque to Manjunath, but, failed to establish same. Consequently, there is admission about due execution of Ex.P1 - cheque. Accused failed to examine said Manjunath. 10. Apart from above, there is also denial of financial capacity of complainant. But, fact that accused failed to reply to demand notice got issued by complainant would justify drawing of adverse inference, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069. 11. It is seen that while passing impugned judgment, trial Court availed statutory presumption in favour of complainant. Though said presumption was rebuttable, it would not suffice for accused to merely make suggestions without - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48829 CRL.RP No. 246 of 2025 corroborating same with some material. as would render such defence reasonably probable. 12. It is also seen that both trial Court as well as first appellate Court have on independent assessment of entire material on record, arrived at well reasoned conclusions, which are not established to be suffering from perversity. No, grounds to interfere. Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71