- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44872 CRL.RP No. 1210 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1210 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. K N RAMACHANDRA SON OF NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTEPURA VILLAGE, KONANUR HOBLI, ARKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N BYREGOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. VENKATESH M R SON OF SRI. M.P. RANGASWAMY RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.971, 22ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560041. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHIT K.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDERS DATED 03.07.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1167/2023 PASSED BY LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-64) AND ALSO ORDER DATED 07.07.2023 PASSED BY XXII ADDL. CMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.9645/2018. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44872 CRL.RP No. 1210 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Though learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has instructions about petitioner's intention to settle matter with respondent. But, learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposes and submits that respondent has no intention for settlement. Therefore, matter is taken up for final disposal on merits. 2. Challenging order dated 03.07.2025 passed by LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH- 64), in Crl.A.no.1167/2023 confirming order dated 07.07.2023 passed by XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.9645/2018, this Revision Petition is filed. 3. Sri N Byregowda, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings in convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I.Act' for short). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44872 CRL.RP No. 1210 of 2025 4. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that complainant and accused were known to each other since 7 to 8 years and accused was a Civil Contractor undertaking Government works, while complainant was employed in MNC in Bengaluru. That accused had sought financial assistance of Rs.30 Lakhs from complainant, which was paid on different dates from his account as well as his wife's account through RTGS. 5. It was further alleged that when accused demanded return, panchayath was held and on 11.04.2016, accused returned sum of Rs.5 Lakhs and on 23.02.2018, issued cheque bearing no.001728 for Rs.25 Lakhs drawn on Axis Bank, Kushalnagar Branch, which when presented for collection, returned with endorsement 'account closed' on 28.02.2018. Despite service of demand notice dated 09.03.2018, accused failed to reply to same or repay amount, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 6. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought to be tried. Complainant examined himself - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44872 CRL.RP No. 1210 of 2025 as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. It was submitted, since accused set up substantial defence and elucidated same in cross-examination of PW.1, he did not lead rebuttal evidence. On appraisal of incriminating material, which he denied, same was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It was submitted, without proper appreciation, trial Court proceeded to convict accused. Same was confirmed by appellate Court. Against concurrent erroneous findings, Revision Petition was filed. 7. It was firstly submitted that there was no relationship of debtor and creditor between complainant and accused. Very statement of complainant would show that amount was paid by complainant's wife Smt.Sreelaxmi. Consequently, judgments by trial Court and appellate Court would be contrary to material on record. Further, it was submitted that during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that Ex.P8 was Bank Account Statement of his wife. Same showed amounts were transferred to accused, which established that financial transactions were between accused and complainant's wife. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44872 CRL.RP No. 1210 of 2025 8. It was secondly submitted that accused denied signature on Ex.P1 - cheque and Ex.P10 - loan agreement alleged to have been executed between accused and complainant. Without proof of same, conviction was erroneous and prayed for allowing petition. 9. On other hand, Sri K Rohith, learned counsel for complainant opposed petition. It was submitted, both Courts had examined material in detail and arrived at reasoned conclusions. It was submitted, accused had not disputed his signature on Ex.P.1 - cheque before trial Court. It was submitted, at time of passing impugned judgment, appellate Court had compared signature of accused on Ex.P.10 - loan agreement and Ex.P.1 - cheque and arrived at conclusion that they are similar. Ex.P.10 loan agreement would substantially establish financial transaction between accused and complainant. It was submitted, merely on ground that some amounts were transferred from account of complainant's wife would not establish that financial transactions were between accused and complainant's wife as other part of amount was transferred directly from account of complainant. It was further submitted, in complaint, complainant had given particulars of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44872 CRL.RP No. 1210 of 2025 amount disbursed from his account and his wife’s account, as per his instructions. It was submitted, scope for interference against concurrent findings in Revision Petition would be limited as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460. In view of above, there is no merit in any of contentions raised and sought for dismissal. 10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and records. 11. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. From above submissions, it is seen that there is no dispute or contention about failure to comply with timeline prescribed under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Challenge is mainly on ground of perversity of findings firstly, denying relationship of debtor and creditor and existence of legally enforceable debt. 12. On perusal of admission elicited in cross- examination of PW.1 about financial transaction and Ex.P8 - bank statement showing financial transactions from account of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44872 CRL.RP No. 1210 of 2025 complainant's wife to accused, same by itself would not establish that loan was lent by complainant's wife to accused. Complainant has clearly stated that loan agreement was between himself and accused and at his instance, amount was transferred by his wife. Payment by complainant's wife to accused would not establish independent financial transaction with her. In any case, both Courts have duly appreciated Ex.P10 - loan agreement between complainant and accused. Therefore, denial of legally enforceable debt or existence of relationship of debtor and creditor would not be justified. Findings of trial Court and appellate Court would be with reference to material on record. 13. Insofar as second contention denying Ex.P.10, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court has stated that there was bare denial, without any attempt to test signature on Ex.P.10. It also noted, failure to elicit anything in cross- examination of PW.1. Same led trial Court to draw adverse inference against complainant. It observed that complainant did not dispute that Ex.P.1 belonged to him and Ex.P.1(a) was his signature. There was also admission of handing over Ex.P.1 to complainant. It observed that accused had sought to dispute - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44872 CRL.RP No. 1210 of 2025 quantum of borrowal. On comparing that with bank account statements in Exs.P5 to P9, trial Court held that complainant had substantiated payment of cheque amount to accused. 14. Under above circumstances, trial Court held there was failure by accused to upset presumption available under Section 139 of N.I.Act and proceeded to convict accused. Perusal of judgment passed by appellate Court would reveal that on independent re-appreciation, it concurred with findings of trial Court. 15. In view of above and with due deference to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor's case (supra), I do not see any good ground to entertain this revision petition. Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SSD, AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35