- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50487 CRL.RP No. 177 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 177 OF 2024 BETWEEN: GAJALAKSHMI R W/O LATE BALACHARI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.490, PANALAL LAYOUT, BOWRILALPET, ROBERTSONPET POST, K.G.F., KOLAR DISTRICT-563122 …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.V.SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE) AND: SARAVANAN S/O LAKSHMANAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.69, KENNEDYS II LANE, OORGAUM POST, K.G.F KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VENKATA REDDY C M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS DATED 02.08.2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F.) IN CRL.A.NO.39/2023 AND IN C.C.NO.247/2019 DATED 01.03.2023 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC AT K.G.F. AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION, 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:50487 CRL.RP No. 177 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 02.08.2023 passed by III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at K.G.F.), in Crl.A.no.39/2023 confirming judgment dated 01.03.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC., K.G.F., in C.C.no.247/2019, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri AV Sampath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri KC Pratheep, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, respondent (complainant) filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that complainant was running a fish shop at Robertsonpet and accused was regularly purchasing fish and well known to him that husband of accused was a goldsmith and based on said acquaintance, accused had financial assistance to an extent of Rs.3,00,000/-, but complainant had lent Rs.2,00,000/- in October, 2018, which accused had agreed to repay within three months and on lapse of said period, on demand, had issued cheque no.054420 dated 22.03.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Robertsonpet Branch, KGF, which when presented for collection - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50487 CRL.RP No. 177 of 2024 returned dishonoured with endorsement dated 26.03.2019 as 'Drawer's signature differs' and thereafter even when demand notice dated 05.04.2019 got issued by complainant was served on 09.04.2019, accused did not reply notice and failed to repay amount, thereby offence under Section 138 of NI Act was committed. 3. On appearance accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, trial Court recorded evidence of complainant and got marked Exs.P.1 to P6. On appraisal of incriminating material, which accused denied, her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Since accused had set up probable defence and established it in cross-examination of PW1, accused did not enter witness box. It was submitted, accused had denied complainant's financial capacity to lent loan. Despite same, except producing cheque, bank endorsement and demand notice/postal acknowledgement, there was no other record produced to substantiate financial capacity. Therefore, trial Court and first appellate Court were not justified in extending presumption under Section 139 of NI Act in favour - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50487 CRL.RP No. 177 of 2024 of complainant that there was legally enforceable debt. On said ground sought for allowing revision petition. 4. On other hand, Sri Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court had referred to specific suggestion by accused that complainant had lent Rs.2,50,000/- to one Iliaz Pasha, which by itself would establish financial capacity of complainant. It was submitted in view of said fact as well as failure of accused had to reply to demand notice, both Courts had rightly passed order of conviction on basis of presumption. Same did not call for interference and sought for dismissal of revision petition. 5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments as well as trial Court records. 6. From above, it is seen that this revision is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge is on ground of perversity insofar as finding about financial capacity of complainant to lend money. Admittedly, accused did not step - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50487 CRL.RP No. 177 of 2024 into witness box and led rebuttal evidence. Though, there is no prohibition against setting up probable defence and establishing same in cross-examination of complainant/his witnesses and based on material placed on record by complainant as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, in instant case, there is no dispute about complainant being a fish-monger. In cross- examination, it is elicited that complainant had invested sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as capital for his fish business. He also stated that he is earning Rs.50,000/- per month from said business and that he retains around Rs.4-5 lakhs cash in his bank account. Besides above, it is also seen accused had suggested that complainant had lent sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to Iliaz Pasha and had filed cheque dishonour case against him as well. Though, complainant had not produced any document than cheque in question to establish transaction and lending, there is no cross-examination about complainant not being due holder of Ex.P.1-cheque. Signature on Ex.P.1 is also not disputed. Under such circumstances, since Ex.P.1 - cheque bears name of respondent/complainant trial Court and first appellate Court were justified in extending statutory presumption in favour of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50487 CRL.RP No. 177 of 2024 complainant and also justified in holding that presumption cannot be upset by mere suggestions, which are denied. In view of above, as findings of both Courts were based on material on record and by assigning reasons, they cannot be hold perverse. Consequently, Revision Petition is without merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45