- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49991 CRL.RP No. 376 of 2024 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. 376 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MARUTHI N ANVEKAR, S/O NARAYANA G ANVEKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BEHIND GANESHA SAW MILL, BASAVANAHALLI EXTENSION, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI YASHWANTH M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE) AND: K.S. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O KEMPANAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI KRISHNA MURTHY N., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2024 PASSED BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.137/2023 BY CONFIRMING JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2023 PASSED BY I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.744/2019 AND ETC., Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49991 CRL.RP No. 376 of 2024 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 20.02.2024 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.137/2023 confirming judgment dated 19.06.2023 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, in C.C.no.744/2019, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri M Yashwanth, learned counsel appearing for Sri Girish B Baladare, advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted, petition was by accused against concurrent findings of conviction 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 borrowed Rs.3 Lakhs on 10.04.2017 with promise to repay same as soon as possible and on demand, issued cheque - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49991 CRL.RP No. 376 of 2024 bearing no.308253 dated 13.10.2017 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Chikkamagaluru Branch, which when presented for collection, returned dishonored with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 16.10.2017. Thereafter, accused failed to repay amount or reply even when demand notice dated 07.11.2017 was served on accused on 09.11.2017, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself and another as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P11. And, on appraisal of incriminating material against him, accused denied same and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused deposed as DW.1 and got marked Exhibit D1. Though accused denied relationship of creditor and debtor between him and complainant and as well as contended that cheque in question was given as security to Margadarshi Chit Fund, Chikkamagaluru, but misused by complainant, substantiated by production of intimation as Ex.D1, without proper appreciation, trial Court passed impugned judgment convicting him. It was submitted, even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49991 CRL.RP No. 376 of 2024 without proper re-appreciation, leading to this revision petition. Therefore, impugned judgments of conviction were contrary to material on record and liable to set aside as perverse. On above grounds, sought for allowing revision petition. 5. On other hand, Sri N Krishna Murthy, 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. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments and record. 7. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge against impugned judgments is on ground of perversity of findings. 8. Insofar as denial of legally enforceable debt disputing financial capacity of complainant, very contention that cheque was issued as security would amount to admission of accused's signature on it. Ex.P1 - cheque bears name of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49991 CRL.RP No. 376 of 2024 complainant. There is no allegation that hand writing on cheque is not that of accused or that it has been filled up without his consent. Thus, benefit of presumption would be available to complainant that issuance of Ex.P1 - cheque was for legally enforceable debt. Indeed, said presumption is not absolute but rebuttable by setting up probable defence, fact that accused failed to examine any Officer of Margadarshi Chit Funds to substantiate that cheque was issued as security would call for rejection of said contention. 9. Insofar as dispute about financial capacity of complainant to lend money, a bare perusal of intimation to Margadarshi Chit Funds to complainant would indicate that complainant was member of Rs.50 Lakhs chit with monthly subscription of Rs.1 Lakh, while and amount mentioned in cheque was only Rs.3 Lakhs. Same would sufficiently substantiate financial capacity of complainant. As observed by trial Court, accused did not reply to demand notice. 10. Besides above, trial Court also noted that complainant had produced IT Returns, which would sufficiently establish financial capacity. Thus, it is seen that findings of trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49991 CRL.RP No. 376 of 2024 Court are based on appreciation of material on record and by assigning due reasons. It is also seen that even Appellate Court, after re-appreciation, arrived on similar conclusion. No case of perversity is made out. Revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Sd/- AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE