- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51262 CRL.RP No. 240 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 240 OF 2023 BETWEEN: K H SHIVAPPA, S/O KARADI BEERAJJA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, GOVT PRIMARY MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER, R/O CHEELAPURA VILLAGE, KASINAKERE POST, VIA HUNASAGHATTA HOLLANI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: B G RUDRESH, S/O LATE B G HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O BASAVAPATNA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANTOSH R NELKUDURI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.790/2019 DATED 02.09.2021 CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.5022/2021 DATED 22.11.2022. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51262 CRL.RP No. 240 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 22.11.2022 passed by IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathi, in Crl.A.no.5022/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2021 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Bhadravathi, in C.C.no.790/2019, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Hiremathad Maheshaiah Rudrayya, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, present proceedings were initiated on a complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was complainant's friend borrowed sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 09.09.2014 for improving his agricultural land and for repayment issued post- dated cheque no.133136 dated 10.10.2014 drawn on Corporation Bank, B.H. road, Bhadravathi, which when presented for collection through his banker Canara Bank returned dishonored with endorsement - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51262 CRL.RP No. 240 of 2023 'funds insufficient' on 30.10.2014 and even when demand notice got issued by complainant was served on accused on 17.11.2014, accused had failed to repay amount within statutory period thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. It was submitted, on appearance accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant got examined himself and two others as PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. Statement of accused denying incriminating material explained was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused led evidence by examining himself as DW1 and got marked ExsD1 to D.5. It was submitted accused had taken substantial defence that cheque issued was in respect of earlier transaction as security and not for discharge of any legal enforceable debt as claimed by complainant. It was submitted said defence was substantiated by confronting complainant and his witnesses with documents marked as Exs.D1 to 5. 4. In cross-examination on 12.05.2017, PW1 admitted that he was transacted with accused for first time. Whereas, in cross-examination on 19.12.2017, he stated that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51262 CRL.RP No. 240 of 2023 transaction as per Ex.D4 was cleared in year 2014, contradicting complainant's claim. Since trial Court and first appellate Court had failed to consider said material in proper perspective, findings thereon were contrary to material on record and as such, perverse calling for interference. On said ground sought for allowing revisions petition. 5. Sri Santosh R Nelkuduri, learned counsel for complainant opposed petition. It was submitted, both Courts concurrently held against accused and convicted him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, based on well reasoned findings, which did not call for interference and sought for dismissal of petition. 6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments as well as records. 7. This revision is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and ground of perversity of findings establishing issuance of Ex.P.1-cheque was towards any legal enforceable debt. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51262 CRL.RP No. 240 of 2023 8. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court noted defence of accused that cheque was issued as security for earlier loan transaction which stood repaid. To substantiate same, accused relies on admission by complainant in cross- examination and inconsistency in deposition of PW1 that transaction in question was first transaction and later admitted about earlier transaction. Firstly, said elicitation appears stray. Secondly, none of documents sought to be relied upon by accused i.e. Exs.D1 to D5 mention about issuance of Ex.P.1- cheque was as security purposes. Exs.D4 and 5 entries in diary of complainant would show receipts of amount on 22.07.2008 and 03.10.2007 respectively. However, same would not either probablize or indicate that Ex.P.1 was received at that time. 9. Both Courts noted that contention about issuance of cheque as security would be admission of signature on cheque as well as its issuance to complainant and extended benefit of presumption under Section 138 of NI Act. They also noted effort of accused was insufficient to upset said presumption by reference to material on record and by assigning reasons. Fact that respondent - complainant has been prosecuted under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51262 CRL.RP No. 240 of 2023 Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 or Karnataka Prohibition of charging exorbitant interest Act, 2004 etc. would not by itself cast doubt about lending of money. 10. Consequently, Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38