- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 427 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI V. SHIVA REDDY S/O LATE BEERE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR, BMP NO.40, 2ND FLOOR, NAGARAJAPPA BUILDING, SUDDAGUNTE PALYA, OPP. CHINMAYA APARTMENT, BENGALURU-560 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI C. RAMESH S/O CHIKKE GOWDA DEAD BY HIS L.R'S A) SUNANDA RAMESH W/O C. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, B) SMT. NEEVEDITHA RAMESH D/O C. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, C) SMT. SMITHA RAMESH D/O C. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.318/A, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 100 FEET ROAD, 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CLIVE JOHNS QUADROS, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.22699/2010 DATED 04.01.2021 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging concurrent, erroneous judgment dated 07.03.2023 passed by LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.25010/2022 confirming judgment dated 04.01.2021 passed by X ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.22699/2010, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri MK Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this revision petition is against concurrent findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short). 3. It was submitted, present proceedings arise out of a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that complainant and accused were relatives and jointly undertook contract work 'Mandya Package' at Srirangapatna and Mallavalli sub-divisions by joint investment. As dispute arose between them with regard to sharing of amount/profits, same was got settled in presence of elders wherein Settlement Deed was executed on 21.09.2004, whereunder accused had agreed to pay sum of Rs.45,34,140/- and issued two cheques dated 01.04.2005 and 21.04.2005 for Rs.29,00,000/- and Rs.16,34,140/- respectively drawn on Kolar Gramin Bank, Kolar, in favour of complainant. Said cheques, when presented for collection returned dishonored with endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer'. Thereafter, when demand notice dated 29.06.2005 got issued by complainant was served on accused, he failed to repay amount within time stipulated, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 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 P11. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which were denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Subsequently, accused examined himself along with two others as DWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D13. 5. It was submitted, though accused had taken defence denying legally enforceable debt, execution of Settlement Deed as well as disputing financial capacity of complainant to pay amount and contending that cheques in question were issued to one Cheluvegowda examined as DW.1 and substantiated same in cross-examination of PW.1 and by examining said Cheluvegowda and Sudhakar Reddy, witnesses to alleged settlement as DWs.1 and 2, trial Court without proper appreciation, proceeded to convict accused. Thus, conclusion arrived at by trial Court were contrary to material on record and as such perverse. It was submitted, even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re- appreciation, leading to this revision petition. Therefore, impugned judgments of conviction were contrary to material on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 record and liable to be set aside as perverse. On above grounds, sought for allowing revision petition. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decisions in K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99 and Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418. 7. On other hand, Sri Clive Johns Quadros, learned counsel for respondents - legal representatives of original complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, very contention of accused that cheques in question were issued to Cheluvegowda - DW.1 would admit signature of accused on them and since cheques bore name of complainant, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would accrue. Though rebuttable, accused had failed to rebut presumption. It was submitted, Cheluvegowda examined as DW.1 had admitted that accused and complainant were doing contract work jointly and there was dispute between them. Apart from above, during cross-examination of PW.1, there was suggestion that on date of settlement deed, SM Shankar, Cheluvegowda, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 Chandrashekar and Kemparaj were present would admit settlement deed. 8. Besides above, it was submitted, failure of accused to reply to demand notice would attract adverse inference. Therefore, both Courts were justified in extending statutory presumption under Section 139 of Act in favour of complainant and same would not call for interference. On said grounds, sought for dismissal. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and record. 10. From above, it is seen that revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Grounds urged are perversity insofar as finding that issuance of Exs.P1 and P2 were towards legally enforceable debt, financial capacity of complainant to lend money and disputing issuance of cheques to complainant. 11. Insofar as first contention about lack of legally enforceable debt, it is seen that in his complaint, demand - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 notice as well as deposition of PW.1 - complainant had stated about complainant being brother-in-law of accused and having undertaken contract work in Mandya with joint investment, about dispute arising between them and which has resolved with execution of Ex.P9 - Settlement Deed and issuance of Exs.P1 and P2 - cheques by accused was in compliance of terms of settlement. Apart from above, it is seen that amount mentioned in Exs.P1 and P2 would tally with amount mentioned in Ex.P9 - Settlement Deed as payable by accused to complainant. It is also seen that during cross-examination of PW.1, suggestion as pointed out by learned counsel for respondent - complainant that on date of settlement deed, SM Shankar, Cheluvegowda, Chandrashekar and Kemparaj were also present and admission elicited that Cheluvegowda was Assistant Executive Engineer, Chandrashekar and Kemparaj were Junior Engineers while SM Shankar was Member of Legislative Council, would inure to complainant about execution of Ex.P9 - Settlement Deed. On other hand, nothing material is elicited to substantiate contention that cheques issued to Cheluvegowda were misused by complainant. In fact, Cheluvegowda is examined as DW.1 by accused and he did not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 state about issuance of cheques to him. Therefore, contention that cheques were issued to Cheluvegowda earlier and accused had issued 'stop payment' instructions to Bank would not lend much to case of accused. 12. Above factors would indicate tacit admission about execution of settlement deed. Even contention that settlement deed bears signature of only one witness, would not invalidate settlement deed. Thus dispute about financial capacity of complainant would also fail. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court and Appellate Court have appreciated above factors and rejected defence set up by accused as being probable. 13. In view of admission about signature on cheques, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act was extended to complainant and on failure to upset such presumption findings of convictions is recorded. Same would be in accordance with law and appreciation of material on record and cannot be stated to be perverse. 14. In K. Subramani's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside order of High Court setting aside - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52279 CRL.RP No. 427 of 2023 judgment of acquittal and remanded matter to trial Court on arriving at conclusion that complainant had failed to establish his financial capacity to lend money. Even decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa's case (supra) is about exercise of jurisdiction after concluding that finding of High Court insofar as financial capacity of complainant was perverse. Same would not lend much to accused in consideration as both Courts have concurrently arrived at conclusion after appreciation of entire material on record. No ground for interference is made out. Revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Registry is directed to transmit TCR and respondent is permitted to withdraw amount in deposit, if any. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28