- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 399 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI HEMANTH SALIAN S/O SHRIDHAR POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT MANDADI HOUSE, ATHIKARIBETTU POST, MOILOTTU MULKI, MANGALURU TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 103. …PETITIONER [BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: SRI RATHNAKAR KOTIAN S/O LATE CHANDU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MANDADI HOUSE, ATHIKARIBETTU POST, MOILOTTU MULKI, MANGALURU TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 154. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M R., ADVOCATE (PH)] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.06.2020 MADE IN C.C.NO.697/2016 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT, MOODABIDRI, D.K. AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.80/2020 BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment and order dated 10.01.2022 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl. A.no.80/2020 confirming order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2020 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri, D.K., in C.C.no.697/2016, this revision petition is filed. 2. Smt.Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, this petition was by accused challenging concurrent findings of conviction for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Act by accused. In complaint, it was alleged towards discharge of legally enforceable debt of Rs.2 Lakhs, accused had issued a cheque no.257981 dated 01.09.2016 drawn on Sri Gokarnanath Co- operative Bank Ltd., Mulky Branch, in favour of complainant. When presented for collection, said cheque returned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022 dishonoured with an endorsement dated 07.09.2016 'funds insufficient'. On receipt of endorsement, complainant had got issued statutory demand notice on 26.09.2016. Despite receipt of same, accused had failed either to reply or pay money, giving rise to cause of action for filing complaint. 3. It was further submitted, on appearance, accused had denied allegations and sought to be tried. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. Denial of incriminating material was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It was submitted, though accused did not lead any rebuttal evidence, he had set up substantial defence in cross-examination of complainant. Firstly, legally enforceable debt was disputed by denying any financial transaction with complainant. It was suggested that wife of accused had borrowed some money from complainant and had duly repaid same. As security for repayment, cheque was issued. Same was misused to file false complaint. It was submitted, as there was failure to produce any material to establish financial transaction with accused, order of conviction was unsustainable. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022 4. Apart from above, even financial capacity of complainant to lend such huge amount was also disputed. It was submitted, even as per complainant, he had withdrawn money from Bank and paid it to accused. His admission that said bank account was opened on very same day would cast serious doubt and substantiate contention of accused that cheque issued as security for loan taken by his wife earlier was being misused. It was submitted, above factors were sufficient to upset presumption under Section 139 of Act. However, both Courts had failed to appreciate same in proper perspective, leading to perverse conclusions calling for interference. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 6. This revision petition is by accused against concurrent judgments of conviction of both Courts for offence punishable under Section 138 of Act. 7. Perusal of judgments passed by both Courts would reveal that they have after due reference to material on record and by assigning detailed reasons arrived at findings. Hon'ble - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022 Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for interference against concurrent findings in a revision petition is normally confined to infraction of statutory provisions or where findings are established to be perverse. As per decision in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, there is no mandatory requirement for accused to lead rebuttal evidence to establish probable defence and same can be achieved from evidence led by complainant. 8. Insofar as first contention, denying legally enforceable debt, very contention of accused that cheque in question was issued as security for loan obtained by his wife from complainant would admit issuance of cheque attracting presumption that same was issued towards legally enforceable debt. It is settled principle of law that such presumption cannot be upset by mere suggestions. Admittedly, accused failed to produce any material to substantiate his defence. Despite cross-examination of accused, no admissions are elicited. Therefore, both Courts would be justified in rejecting such contention. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42112 CRL.RP No. 399 of 2022 9. Likewise, lack of financial capacity also cannot be established by mere suggestion. In any case, both Courts have noted sufficient explanation that complainant had withdrawn amount from bank account on same day and paid it to accused. Merely on ground that said bank account was opened on same day would not probablize any doubt. On other hand, it could be as an act of precaution. 10. There are no contentions urged about infraction with any statutory requirements under Section 138 of Act. No case of perversity is established. Hence, no grounds to entertain revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22