- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1337 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. M/S JAYA ENGINEERING WORKS NO. 199 (SHED NO 3), 12TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058 PROP: SRI K SUNDAR. 2. K SUNDAR S/O LATE KANNAPPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO. 296, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NEHRU P, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI NAGARAJ @ NAGARAJAN S/O LATE R.V. KANDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO 829, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SUMA T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023 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 ENTIRE IMPUGNED ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED 4TH ADDL. AND ACMM, SMALL CAUSES COURT, BENGALURU, S.C.C.H.-06 IN C.C.NO.2495/2018 DATED 09.09.2019 AND THE ORDER OF JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2023, PASSED BY LEARNED LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU CITY (CCH-76) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2114/2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order of sentence and fine dated 09.09.2019 passed by IV Additional & ACMM, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, SCCH-06, in C.C.no.2495/2018 and confirmed in judgment dated 03.03.2023 passed by LXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-76) in Crl.A.no.2114/2019, this Revision Petition is filed. 2. Sri P.Nehru, learned counsel for petitioner-accused submits Revision Petition is against concurrent findings of Trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023 Court convicting accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. ACT'). 3. It was submitted on an allegation that complainant and accused were relatives and in March 2016 accused had sought hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for performance of marriage of his daughter and for his business assuring to return same within six months and complainant had lent only Rs.8,00,000/-, which he could arrange and remaining Rs.5,00,000/- was arranged by Nagarajan, his brother. It was submitted totally Rs.13,00,000/- was lent to accused. 4. On completion of period and on demand, accused had issued cheque bearing no.192810 dated 14.01.2018 for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on SBM, Malleshwaram Branch which when presented for payment had returned with postal endorsement 'Insufficient Funds' on 19.03.2018 and thereafter even when complainant had issued demand notice, which was served on accused, had failed to reply or make payment and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, a private complaint was filed. On appearance, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023 accused had sought to be tried. Thereafter complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 8. Appraisal of incriminating material and their denial was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused had examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D-1 to D3. 5. It was submitted despite accused having established substantial defence, both Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court without proper consideration had proceeded to convict accused. It was submitted impugned judgment suffered from perversity and call for interference. 6. It was submitted, as per complainant she had lent money of Rs.8,00,000/- for two years without interest, which was unlike normal behaviour, casting doubt of transaction. It was submitted claim that transaction was in cash, which would be contrary to law and would also cast doubt on transaction. It was lastly submitted, as per complainant there was no other security for transaction. This would also cast doubt on transaction. It was submitted cumulative effect of these would upset presumption available to complainant under provisions of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023 N.I. Act. Such being case, order of conviction would be contrary to law and sought for allowing Revision. 7. Smt. Suma T. learned counsel appearing for Sri B.R.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent - complainant opposed Revision. 8. It was submitted both Trial Court and First Appellate Court, on consideration of entire material on record, had arrived at right conclusion and there was no scope for interference. 9. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused impugned judgments. 10. From above, it is seen that this Revision is by accused against concurrent findings convicting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held scope for interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against concurrent findings would be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023 limited to examine whether findings are contrary to a statute or suffer from perversity. 12. In instant case, accused is not espousing any grievance insofar as timeline under Section 138 of N.I. Act. His main grievance is against findings suffering from perversity. Insofar as contentions that lending was without interest and that it was without obtaining any security and lending was in cash, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069 has stated that every minute doubt that may be cast on those espoused would not be sufficient enough to upset presumption available under provisions of N.I. Act. The accused has to establish probable defence based on same material. 13. In instant case, there is sufficient explanation in complaint that complainant and accused were well known to each other. Therefore, lending of money without interest and without obtaining any security would not give rise to any doubt. It is further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in above mentioned decision, that violation of provisions of Income Tax - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023 Act about transactions being in cash would also not constitute sufficient cause so as to upset presumption. 14. In view of above, no grounds are made out for interference. I do not find any good ground to entertain this Revision Petition. Revision Petition is dismissed. 15. In view of dismissal of Revision Petition, pending I.A. is also dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14