- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8244 CRL.RP No. 956 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 956 OF 2017 BETWEEN: S C SOMMANNA S/O LATE CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O EMPLOYEE OF CORPORATION BANK 3RD CROSS, BALEGADDE, RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA SAKLESHPURA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: S KIRAN S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O OWNER OF NANDINI MILK DEPO N.C. ROAD, SAKLESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S JAVEED, AMICUS CURIAE) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.257/2016 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2016 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SAKLESHPURA IN C.C.NO.12/2012 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8244 CRL.RP No. 956 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2016 in C.C.No.12/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Sakleshpur and the judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 in Crl.A.No.257/2016 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’). 2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered accordingly for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the complainant that he knew accused since many years, therefore, the accused had approached him and requested him to lend Rs.1,85,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant stated to have lent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8244 CRL.RP No. 956 of 2017 Rs.1,85,000/- on 01.07.2011. The accused had agreed to repay the same within one month and had issued a cheque for the said amount, by mentioning the date as 01.08.2011, towards discharge of the said loan amount. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, it came to be returned with an endorsement as “funds insufficient”. The complainant issued a legal notice on 02.09.2011 through RPAD and the said notice came to be served to the accused. In spite of service of the said notice, the accused has neither repaid the amount nor replied to the said notice. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The Trial Court convicted the accused and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.2,22,000/-, in default, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8244 CRL.RP No. 956 of 2017 On appeal being filed, the Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.Javeed, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are contrary to the evidence on record and also opposed to the facts and law. 7. It is further submitted that the complainant has not proved the financial capacity to lend the amount to the accused. However, the Trial Court did not act on the said issue and proceeded to record the conviction which is not sustainable. 8. It is further submitted that the defence of the accused had not been considered by the Trial Court. In fact, the complainant had borrowed the amount from Sriram General Insurance Company and the accused had stood as a surety. During the said period, the complainant had received the cheques to produce the same to Sriram - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8244 CRL.RP No. 956 of 2017 General Insurance Company and misused the said cheques. 9. It is further submitted that as there is no legal enforceable debt or liability in respect of the cheques, recording the conviction needs to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent submitted that the complainant being the respondent herein had proved the case stating that the accused had executed the said cheques towards discharge of the debt or liability and he justified the concurrent findings passed by the Courts below. Making such submissions, learned Amicus Curiae prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it appears from the record that both the complainant and the accused were known to each other for several years and the accused is stated to have borrowed a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- as a hand loan and issued a cheque, by mentioning the date as 01.08.2011. When the said - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8244 CRL.RP No. 956 of 2017 cheque was presented for encashment, it came to be dishonoured as “funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate after taking cognizance and after considering the evidence on record, recorded the conviction. Thereafter, in the appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 12. Be that as it may, the defense of the accused before the Trial Court was that the accused had made transaction with the brother of the complainant, namely, Basavaraj and he had issued three cheques as a security to the said Basavaraj. The said Basavaraj had got filed three cases through different persons. This is also one of the cases of which the said Basavaraj got the case filed through the complainant. However, nothing has been placed to show that there was a transaction between the said Basavaraj and the accused and the accused even though had taken such a defense, has not proved the case through proper manner. Therefore, the defense of the accused has rightly not been considered by the Courts below. When - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8244 CRL.RP No. 956 of 2017 the defence of the accused has failed to convince the Court in a proper perspective, adverse inference has rightly been drawn by the Courts below. Hence, interference with the said findings is not proper. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the findings. 13. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER. (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) The assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae is appreciated. The appreciation is placed on record. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay remuneration of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the learned Amicus Curiae, for his effective assistance, forthwith. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8