- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48117 CRL.RP No. 1549 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1549 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI CHANNABASAVANAGOWDA, S/O SIDDAPPA (BYRAPPA SIDDAPPA) AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NIBAGURU VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a) MR. U.N.MANJANNA S/O NANJAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. SHRUTHI M., W/O THIMMARAJU, D/O U.K. MANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O MEDEHALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 501. 1(b) SMT SHOBVHA U M., W/O NANDISH GOWDA, D/O U.N. MANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O CHIKKA ARAKERE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48117 CRL.RP No. 1549 of 2023 JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 002. 1(c)W SIDDESH U M., S/O U.N. MANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O ARISHINAGUNDI VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI SANTHOSH R NELKURDRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (a-c)] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.09.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.138/2018 BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANAGERE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.12.2018 MADE IN C.C.NO.46/2018 BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, JAGALURU AND THEREBY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48117 CRL.RP No. 1549 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 11.09.2023 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in Crl.A.no.138/2018 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2018 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC., Jagaluru, in C.C.no.46/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was against concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused was known to complainant since several years and on 10.11.2017 borrowed sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as hand loan, agreeing to repay same within 15 days and issued cheque bearing no.548895 dated 15.12.2017 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Jagaluru, which when presented for collection, returned with endorsement 'funds insufficient" on 04.01.2018 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48117 CRL.RP No. 1549 of 2023 and accused failed to repay amount or reply to demand notice dated 05.01.2018 got issued by complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6. Thereafter, accused was explained about incriminating material, which he denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Since accused had substantiated his defence in cross- examination of complainant, he did not lead evidence. However without proper consideration of facts and circumstances, Trial Court erroneously convicted accused. Even appeal filed against said order was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision petition. 5. It was firstly submitted, accused had merely contended that there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused as claimed by complainant and without any other material than cheque in question, complaint was filed. Therefore, Trial Court had convicted accused without any proper basis. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48117 CRL.RP No. 1549 of 2023 6. It was further submitted, during cross-examination of PW.1, it was elicited that complainant had paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.11.2017 in currency denominations of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/-, which was totally false and same would be vindicated by admission elicited that from 08.11.2016, currency notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- were withdrawn by Reserve Bank of India. It was also contended that cheque in question was stolen from shop of accused which complainant had admitted to have visited. Impugned judgment passed by Trial Court thus suffered from perversity calling for interference. On above grounds sought for allowing revision petition. 7. On other hand, Sri Santhosh R. Nelkudri, learned counsel for legal representatives of complainant opposed petition. It was submitted, both Courts had on independent appreciation of material on record arrived at reasoned conclusion and there was no scope for interference in revision petition. 8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments as well as copies of deposition and exhibits made - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48117 CRL.RP No. 1549 of 2023 available for perusal of this Court by learned counsel for accused. 9. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge is on ground that impugned judgments suffer from perversity, firstly on ground that complainant had admitted to have paid Rs.5,00,000/- in currency denomination of Rs.1,000/- which were withdrawn much prior to date of payment herein. 10. While it is indeed admitted by PW.1 that on 10.11.2017 he was in possession of three bundles of 100 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination, two bundles of 100 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and ten bundles of 100 currency notes of Rs.100 denomination, there is no admission elicited that payment was made using currency notes of Rs.1,000/-. During cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited that complainant had exchanged currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- denominations with Banker and obtained currency notes of Rs.2,000/- denominated. Even insofar as contention that cheque in question was stolen from shop of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48117 CRL.RP No. 1549 of 2023 accused, it is only elicited that PW.1 had visited accused's shop on few occasions. In case cheque were lost or stolen, nothing prevented accused from filing police complaint or intimating his Banker for stopping payment. In absence of same, adverse inference has to be drawn. 11. Besides, it is also seen that denial of financial capacity of complainant is without setting up such a defence by filing reply to demand notice. Failure to issue reply notice is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069 to attract inference against accused. 12. Thus, none of grounds urged would substantiate contention about impugned judgments suffering from perversity. Perusal of impugned judgments would indicate that both Courts have after referring to entire material on record and contentions urged, arrived at reasoned conclusion. No grounds to interfere, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27