- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52607 CRL.RP No. 1503 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1503 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI SABEERA @ FHAJALUDDIN S/O JALALUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION ARECANUT BUSINESS, R/AT ANALEKOPPA SIRUVALA ROAD, SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJASHEKARA R V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI AMANULLA, LATE ABDUL GAFFER SAB, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT AZAD MASJID ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR, DATED 15.10.2024 IN CRL.A.NO.10035/2024, IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ANNEXURE-A. b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT SAGAR DATED 27.05.2024 IN CC.NO.566/2016, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 138 OF NI ACT, BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52607 CRL.RP No. 1503 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 15.10.2024 passed by V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Sagar, in Crl.A.no.10035/2024 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2024 passed by Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Sagar, in C.C.no.566/2016, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Rajashekara RV, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, proceedings were initiated on a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had borrowed Rs.2,90,000/- on 06.02.2016 to meet his urgent domestic needs promising to repay same on or before 18.02.2016 and on demand had issued post-dated cheque no.101157 for Rs.2,90,000/- dated 04.04.2016 drawn on Axis Bank, Kasaragodu Branch, which when presented for collection returned dishonored on 06.04.2016 with endorsement 'funds insufficient' and Thereafter even when demand notice dated 18.04.2016 got issued by complainant was served on 22.04.2016, accused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52607 CRL.RP No. 1503 of 2024 failed to repay amount within stipulated time, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. It was submitted on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial, wherein, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 12. On explaining incriminating material, which was denied by accused, his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, accused led defence evidence examining himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.D.1 and 2, handwriting expert was also examined as CW1. Though accused had taken up substantial contention denying existence of legally enforceable debt for issuance of cheque as well as disputing financial capacity of complainant to lend money, trial Court without proper consideration, convicted accused. Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed without re-appreciation leading to this revision. It was submitted, impugned judgment therefore, suffered from perversity and called for interference. 4. It was firstly submitted, finding about existence of legally enforceable debt for issuance of cheque was without taking note of fact that there was no proof of complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52607 CRL.RP No. 1503 of 2024 lending money to accused. In fact, complainant lacked financial capacity to pay money. Exs.P.7 to 9 - bank statement and pass books would reveal that he did not have sufficient money in his account as on 06.02.201. In cross-examination of PW.1 on 05.02.2024, an admission was elicited that there were no documents to establish complainant had sufficient money to lend and establish lending. An admission was also elicited that in his demand notice, complainant had not stated about withdrawal of money from his bank account to pay to accused. And further except Ex.P.1 - cheque, there were no other documents to substantiate lending. Suggestions made that cheque in question was issued as security at time of accused carrying on arecanut business with complainant and sustained loss and on demand complainant failed to return back cheque and misused it, were denied. 5. In support his submission, counsel relied upon paras no.9 to 11 of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K Subramani v. K Damodara Naidu, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99. It was submitted, when complainant himself had borrowed loan at relevant period without specific proof it could not be presumed that he had financial capacity to lend money - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52607 CRL.RP No. 1503 of 2024 to accused and on said ground accused was acquitted. In instant case, as complainant failed to show he had sufficient money to lend as on 06.02.201, conviction could not be supported. On said ground sought for allowing revision petition. 6. On other hand, Sri Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for respondent opposed revision. It was submitted, there was admission about issuance of cheque as security for purpose of areca-nut business carried on earlier. Thus, there is admission about issuance of cheque in favour of complainant. Said admission would attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. It was submitted, despite cross-examination, nothing material is elicited to upset presumption. Though, accused denied his signature on Ex.P.1, CW1-handwriting expert confirmed signature on Ex.P.1 - cheque was that of accused. Thus, conclusion arrived at by both Courts were in accordance with law and based on material on record, and sought dismissal of revision petition. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52607 CRL.RP No. 1503 of 2024 8. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge is mainly on ground of perversity insofar as finding about issuance of Ex.P.1 towards legally enforceable debt and financial capacity of complainant. One of defences taken by accused was about Ex.P.1-cheque issued as security when accused and complainant were doing in areca-nut business. This would admit signature of accused on Ex.P.1-cheque as well as its issuance to complainant. Said admission would attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Though, said presumption is rebuttable by setting up probable defence, to upset presumption accused relied on elicitation of admission during cross-examination of PW.1 that except Ex.P.1, he had no other documents to establish he had sufficient amount to lend money to accused on 06.02.2016, coupled with Exs.P.7 to 9 account extracts and bank pass books. 9. Perusal of Ex.P.7 would reveal withdrawal of Rs.1,50,000/- on 02.02.2016. It would also reveal balance of around Rs.2,30,000/- as on 28.01.2016. Ex.P.8 shows balance of Rs.17,459/- as on 03.11.2015, but, Rs.9,82,809/- as on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52607 CRL.RP No. 1503 of 2024 26.05.2016. There is no material to establish that except above, complainant did not have any other bank account or cash on hand. Apart from same, there is withdrawal of Rs.1,50,000/- on 02.02.2016, which is in proximity with date of lending on 02.02.2016. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court noted that accused had failed to issue reply to demand notice, which as per decision of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, would invite inference against accused. While passing impugned judgment trial Court as well as appellate Court adverted to entire material on record referred to case law relied upon and arrived at well reasoned conclusion. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharastra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar reported in 2008 (9) SCC 475, has held that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised in exceptional cases and Revisional Court cannot convert itself into an Appellate Court. 11. In view of above, reliance placed on Subramani's case (supra) would not be of any assistance, as in said case, it was established that complainant, who had borrowed loan of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52607 CRL.RP No. 1503 of 2024 Rs.1,49,000/- from LIC could not claim to have lent Rs.14,00,000/- to accused. No factors to bring said decision on parity with instant case is made out. 12. Though, learned counsel sought for indulgence of this Court to modify and reduce sentence as trial Court had imposed fine amount of nearly double that of cheque amount, admittedly, same is within powers of trial Court. Thus, no case for interference made out on quantum of sentence as well. For aforesaid reasons, revision petition is without merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42