- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50032 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1566 OF 2023 BETWEEN: PRAKASH N., S/O NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO 623/A, 2ND CROSS, NALA STREET, K.R. MOHALLA MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SYED ARIF PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: SOMANNA, S/O JAVARSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO 32, MAIDANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 130. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 05.10.2023 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.216/2022 AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.2879/2018 Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50032 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2023 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSURU DATED 23.06.2022. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 05.10.2023 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.216/2022 confirming judgment dated 23.06.2022 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.no.2879/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Syed Asif Pasha, learned counsel appearing for Sri B Lethif, advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted, petition was by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act' for short). 3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that accused was known to him since long and in month of June, 2014, obtained - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50032 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2023 Rs.1,50,000/- to improve his business and for other legal necessities, agreeing to repay with interest at 1% per month. Thereafter, accused had paid interest and towards repayment of loan, issued cheque bearing no.553328 dated 20.12.2017 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Vanivilasa Market Branch, Mysuru, which when presented for collection, returned dishonored with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 29.12.2017 and even when demand notice dated 12.01.2018 issued by complainant was served on accused on 17.01.2018, accused issued reply notice on 03.02.2018. 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, on appraisal of incriminating material against him, accused denied same and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Therefore, accused stepped into witness box as DW.1 but did not got marked any documents and deposed that he had in fact borrowed Rs.20,000/- for improving his business and at that time, issued cheque in question towards security. It was submitted, accused had also questioned financial capacity of complainant to have lent Rs.1,50,000/- to accused. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50032 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2023 However, even though complainant had failed to produced any material other than cheque, demand notice and reply etc., which would not substantiate lending and borrowal, trial Court had erroneously convicted accused. It was submitted, even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re- appreciation, leading to this revision petition. Thus, impugned judgments of conviction suffer from perversity and call for interference. 5. It was firstly submitted, issuance of cheque was for security and secondly, there is no material placed on record by complainant to establish his financial capacity to lend Rs.1,50,000/- to accused. It was submitted, in his deposition, accused had clearly stated that amount borrowed was Rs.70,000/- which he had agreed to return with 5% interest and issued Ex.P1 - cheque towards security. Thereafter, debt was cleared and on demand for return of cheque, complainant had failed to return. 6. It was elicited that even prior to transaction in question, accused had borrowed money earlier and repaid same which would lend credence to defence set up that Ex.P1 - - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50032 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2023 cheque was issued for security purpose only. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court as well as Appellate Court proceeded to convict accused merely on ground that complainant was entitled for statutory presumption under Section 139 of NI Act and accused had failed to repay said sum. It was submitted, above material would indicate that accused have probabilized his defence and failure to appreciate same have rendered findings perverse. On above grounds, sought for allowing revision petition. 7. On other hand, Sri K Shridhara, learned counsel for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts concurrently appreciated material on record and arrived at well reasoned conclusions, leaving no scope for interference. On said ground, sought dismissal. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments and record. 9. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge is mainly on ground of perversity of findings, firstly, that Ex.P1 - cheque was issued as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50032 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2023 security for loan amount of Rs.20,000/-, which was repaid, in instant case, it is seen that in response to demand notice at Ex.P3, accused had issued reply at Ex.P6. In said reply, accused has not taken any such contention. Defence set up in reply notice was denying relationship of creditor and debtor in toto. 10. Though accused deposed that amount borrowed was Rs.20,000/- only and same was repaid with interest, in cross-examination of PW.1, suggestion made repeatedly is amount borrowed was Rs.70,000/-, which was repaid with interest, which would be material inconsistency with regard to defence set up. 11. Besides admission elicited about earlier loan transaction with complainant would sufficiently substantiate financial capacity of complainant. It is also seen that failure to set up defence disputing financial capacity in reply notice would lead to inference against accused. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court and Appellate Court, have extended benefit of statutory presumption in favour of complainant in view of admission about signature on cheque and its issuance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50032 CRL.RP No. 1566 of 2023 to complainant and on ground that accused failed to upset presumption, proceeded to pass impugned judgments of conviction. Same would be fully in accordance with law and not perverse. Revision petition is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57