- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2962 CRL.RP No. 100384 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100384 OF 2022 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: HAJARAT H.MULLA, (HAJARAT ALI) AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. SECURITY GUARD, R/O. H.NO.158, KHANAPUR ROAD, NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-583212. … PETITIONER (BY SRI V.S.KALSOORMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.V.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: VENKATESH RAYAPA DODDAMANI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.36, MITRA VISHALPARK, VIDYANAGAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI KUSHAL V.BOLMAL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH UNDER SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO KINDLY ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND KINDLY CALL FOR RECORDS AND KINDLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39/2021, DATED 17.08.2022 BY I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.1515/2019, DATED 22.02.2021, BY THE JMFC III COURT HUBBALLI, AT HUBBALLI AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.14 15:02:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2962 CRL.RP No. 100384 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment dated 17.08.2022 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (‘Appellate Court’, for short) in Crl.A.no.39/2021 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2021 passed by J.M.F.C-III Court, Hubballi (‘Trial Court’, for short) in C.C.no.1515/2017, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri VS Kalasoormath, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed CC.no.1515/2019 before trial Court alleging that petitioner had obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from respondent (complainant) on 18.02.2016 to provide for his financial difficulties and had repaid Rs.1,40,000/- out of same upto 15.01.2019. For payment of balance amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, he had issued cheque no.239914 dated 17.07.2019 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Belagavi branch. On presentation of cheque, it returned dishonored with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ on 18.07.2019. Thereafter, complainant had got issued demand notice on 30.07.2019. Though same was duly served on 09.08.2019, amount due was not paid even after lapse of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2962 CRL.RP No. 100384 of 2022 fifteen days nor any reply addressed. Therefore, a private complaint was filed. 3. On appearance, petitioner denied charges. Therefore, matter was set for trial. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 Petitioner examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.7. 4. During trial, main contention of petitioner was that he had repaid Rs.1,40,000/- by 19.08.2017 and about clearing balance on 17.07.2018, sought to be established by production of bank pass book and vouchers. 5. However, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court had not properly appreciated contentions especially vouchers Exs.D.3 to D.7. It was submitted even appellate court dismissed appeal, without re-appreciation. It was submitted, petitioner was in any case ready to deposit balance amount, but same was not being accepted by complainant. On above grounds sought interference. 6. Learned counsel for respondent supported impugned judgment/orders. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2962 CRL.RP No. 100384 of 2022 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment/orders and records. 8. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner has made out a case for interference with concurrent findings of trial Court and Appellate Court?” 9. At outset, it is seen that this revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC against concurrent findings. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has clarified about scope for interference as under: “18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2962 CRL.RP No. 100384 of 2022 10. It is seen petitioner herein has not disputed availing loan from complainant, but claimed repayment, firstly of Rs.1,40,000/- by 19.08.2017 and issuance of cheque in question towards security for repayment of balance amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. Petitioner also claimed to have repaid balance amount on 17.07.2018, sought to be established by Ex.D3 to D7 vouchers. 11. As observed by trial Court, said vouchers were for period prior to date of borrowing. It observed, contrary to petitioner’s claim to have repaid entire balance amount by 17.07.2018, petitioner admitted to have executed Ex.P.6 bond on 05.10.2018. Though, Ex.P.6 would indicate that Ex.P.1 cheque was issued as security for balance amount, petitioner failed to probabilise payment of same. 12. In view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 614, contention about cheque being issued only for security purposes, would not hold good. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2962 CRL.RP No. 100384 of 2022 13. In view of fact that petitioner did not dispute receipt of loan, being due to repay portion of same and issuance of cheque for said purposes, presumption in law under Section 118 and 139 of NI Act would be available to complainant. As petitioner failed to probabilize defense, extension of presumption would be justified. Consequently, order of conviction passed by trial Court and upheld by appellant Court would be in accordance with law. In view of above, point for consideration is answered in negative. Hence, following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22