- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022 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. 282 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.2284, 2ND CROSS, D BLOCK, KANAKADASANAGARA, DATAGALLI, MYSORE - 570 022. …PETITIONER [BY SRI MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE (VC)] AND: SRI SHIVANNA S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.1031, 4/9 MAIN, E AND F BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 022. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI G. KRISHNA REVANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHISHEK RAMESH, ADVOCATE (PH)] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.96/2021 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2021 PASSED BY THE V JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS MYSURU IN C.C.NO.227/2020. THIS PETITION IS 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:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 10.12.2021 passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.96/2021 confirming judgment dated 16.03.2021 passed by V JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.no.227/2020, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri BK Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petition was against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was known to him and in June 2017, when accused requested hand-loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for legal necessities agreeing to repay same with 18% interest, complainant lent said amount. And when complainant demanded repayment, accused had issued three cheques bearing no.090206 to 090208 dated 30.07.2018, 05.08.2008 and 30.08.2008 respectively for Rs.1,00,000/- each drawn on Vijaya Bank, JLB Road Branch, Mysuru. And when said cheques were presented for collection through his - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022 banker Central Bank of India, Mysuru, they returned with endorsements dated 13.09.2018 'Account in-operative' and even when legal notice dated 05.10.2018 got issued by complainant was duly served, accused neither complied with demand nor replied, thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. It was submitted, on appearance, when accused appeared, pleaded not guilty and sought trial, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.17. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. There was no rebuttal evidence. 4. It was submitted, accused had taken up various defence and substantiated same in cross-examination of PW.1. Without proper appreciation, trial Court passed order of conviction. Though, appeal was preferred, same was dismissed without proper re-appreciation. Thus, impugned judgments suffer from perversity calling for interference. 5. It was submitted, entire prosecution was on incorrect facts and assertions. It was submitted, accused had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022 borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant in year 2017 and same was duly repaid. It was submitted, cheques in question were given as security for said loan. Instead of returning said cheques, complainant had misused same and filed false case. 6. It was submitted, admission elicited during cross- examination of PW.1 that cheques in question did not bear name of accused would indicate that they were non-MICR cheques in use during year 2017 and which were dis-continued from usage as per directions of RBI in year 2018. 7. Moreover, account itself become inactive from 13.09.2018. But, as per complainant, cheques were given by accused, when complainant visited accused home on three different dates i.e. 30.07.2018, 05.08.2018 and 30.08.2018, without explanation why they were not got issued on same day or not presenting first cheque for collection immediately after issue. This would cast serious doubt about transactions. It was further submitted, admission was elicited in cross-examination of PW1 on 04.02.2020 that apart from cheque no other documents were obtained, which would appear unusual while lending huge amount of money. At same time, it was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022 submitted, complainant failed to establish his financial capacity to lend such huge amount to accused. It was submitted, both Courts had failed to appreciate said factors and thereby committed serious irregularities, which called for allowing revision. 8. On other hand, Sri G Krishna Revanth, learned counsel appearing for Sri Abhishek Ramesh, advocate for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently convicted accused, leaving no scope for interference. 9. Without prejudice, it was submitted, accused had failed to produce material to substantiate earlier loan, its repayment and issuance of cheques as security for said loan. Insofar as cheques being non-MICR cheques, it was submitted, RBI had clarified that such cheques though stopped being issued in year 2018, would continue to be legal tender, until their total discontinuation in year 2022. It was submitted, even failure of accused to submit reply to statutory demand notice would dispel contentions of accused herein. On said grounds sought for dismissal of petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022 10. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 11. This revision petition is by accused against concurrent finding of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, on specific grounds. 12. Perusal of impugned judgments reveal that both Courts have after due reference of entire material on record passed judgments assigning detailed reasons and that findings are concurrent. Hon'ble 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 cases involving infraction of statutory provisions or findings established to suffer from perversity. 13. Insofar as first contention that cheques in question were given as security for earlier loan and misuse of such cheques, except suggestion, there is no material placed on record to substantiate same and rightly rejected by trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022 14. Insofar as contention about cheques being non- MICR and not being legal tender, it was submitted, non-MICR cheques, though discontinued were clarified to be legal tender, until their discontinuation in year 2022. 15. And contention that account had become inactive from 13.09.2018, has to be rejected as same was after date of issuance of cheques. Further contention that accused issued cheques when complainant visited house of accused on three different dates i.e. 30.07.2018, 05.08.2018 and 30.08.2018 would also not be sufficient to upset presumption available under NI Act. 16. Further, standard to be applied for testing probability of defence would be that of normal prudent man and unless same appeals to Court as reasonable, merely on ground that defence adopted was a possibility, would not upset presumption under NI Act. In view of same, when complainant has stated that he knew accused since several years, failure to obtain any documents, would not appear unusual. 17. Even insofar as contention doubting financial capacity to lend money, it is seen that same is based on mere - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44656 CRL.RP No. 282 of 2022 suggestions, without any corroborating material and liable for rejection. 18. Thus, none of grounds urged would establish perversity of findings recorded by both Courts. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24