- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51999 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 80 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI PRAMOD N S/O SRI NAGARAJACHAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, HEGGANAHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVENAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI YOGESH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHANKAR M. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SONNE GOWDA C AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SRI CHINNAPPA, R/A NO.3, NEAR SURYODYA, VIDYA MANDIR, RAJANAKUNTE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHASHIKUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51999 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2024 18.11.2023 PASSED BY IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.94/2022 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2022 IN C.C.NO.635/2022 PASSED BY THE II A.C.J.M, BENGAURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU SENTENCING THE PETITIONER TO PAY FINE OF RS.7,00,000/- AND IN DEFAULT THE PETITIONER SHALL UNDERGO S.I FOR ONE YEAR AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. 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 18.11.2023 passed by IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.94/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2022 passed by II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.635/2022, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Yogesh HV, learned counsel appearing for Sri Shankar M Naik, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that present revision is arising out of proceedings initiated by respondent (complainant) in a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was a goldsmith well known to complainant and during 2nd week of February, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51999 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2024 2020, sought for Rs.5,00,000/- as hand loan for his business purpose. Since complainant had borrowed home-loan and was having cash in hand, on 15.02.2020, in presence of RT Raghu and Manjunath K, complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- in cash to accused. Accused had assured to repay same within six months with interest of Rs.12,000/- per annum. Accused had also executed an agreement in favour of complainant. On expiry of said period and on demand accused had issued cheque no.000278 on 21.09.2021 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on ICICI bank, Avenue road branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection returned dishonoured on 22.09.2021 with endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter even when demand notice dated 18.10.2024 got issued by complainant was served on 22.10.2021, he failed to repay amount within stipulated time or reply to notice, thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. It was submitted on appearance, accused denied defence and sought trial. Therefore complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 6. Thereafter incriminating material was explained to accused, which was denied and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51999 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2024 recorded. Thereafter accused did not lead defence evidence. It was submitted without proper consideration, trial Court proceeded to convict accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed without re-appreciation leading to this revision. 4. It was submitted, complainant had sought to substantiate lending of loan by relying on loan agreement. As per complainant, loan was given in presence of two witnesses, neither of whom were examined. Same would have provided opportunity to accused to cross-examine them. Under such circumstances, order of conviction cannot be sustained. Further, complainant sought to substantiate his financial capacity by stating that amount borrowed as home loan is available with him, in cash. But, no documents were produced to substantiate same. In Ex.P.3, interest fixed is 1%, but it was stated Rs.95,000/- was due as interest. On above grounds sought for allowing revision. 5. Sri.Shashikumar N, learned counsel appearing for Sri Pavan Kumar G, counsel for complainant opposed revision. It was submitted, entire deposition of complainant was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51999 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2024 uncontroverted, as accused failed to cross-examine complainant deposed as PW1. In view of same, trial Court arrived at findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It was submitted, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court noted that complainant had clearly deposed about lending of loan to accused and substantiated same by production of loan agreement as per Ex.P.6, making demand, accused issuing cheque in question towards repayment, its presentation, dishonour, issuance of demand notice to accused, its due service and failure of accused making repayment within time line as indicated in Section 138 of NI Act. On appreciation of same and taking note fact that same was uncontroverted, trial Court proceeded to convict accused by assigning presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Though, in appeal accused urged that he had repaid amount to tune of Rs.4,48,000/- by way of cash and online payment and urged that complainant had suppressed same, there was no material to establish same. 6. It was further submitted appellate Court concurred with finding of trial Court and dismissed appeal. Thus, findings against accused were concurrent and could not be interfered - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51999 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2024 with in revision. On said ground, sought for dismissal of revision. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and perused records. 8. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Grounds urged are perversity of findings especially, insofar as failure of complainant to establish relationship of creditor and debtor and failure to prove financial capacity and cheque was for amount due. Insofar as first contention of failure to substantiate existence of relationship of creditor and debtor, it is seen that complainant had pleaded that at time of borrowing loan, accused had executed loan agreement in presence of two witnesses and also produced said loan agreement as Ex.P.6. Thus, there is material to establish lending. 9. Even insofar as contention that, amount mentioned in cheque as well as demand notice do not refer to actual amount due, accused had sought to contend that there was substantial repayment of loan amount, but no material was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51999 CRL.RP No. 80 of 2024 produced to establish same. Accused has not even cross- examined complainant. 10. Insofar as contention that failure to examine witnesses present at time of loan agreement as being fatal, in absence of any challenge to complainant's assertion and depositions, trial Court is justified in accepting consistent assertion of complainant supported by documentary evidence to extend benefit of presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act in favour of complainant and convict accused for failure to upset said presumption. In view of above, no case of perversity in findings is made out. Revision petition is without merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32