- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47078 CRL.RP No. 1641 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1641 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI E M AZEEZ, SON OF MOIDEEN KUTTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NEAR BRIGHT SCHOOL, VIRAJPET, SOUTH KODAGU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RUDRESH R.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHIDANAND GOPAL YAVAGALL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. H M SUJATHA, W/O H M MUTHU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A ARJI VILLAGE, KALLUBANE POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODGU DISTRICT - 571 218. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED AUGUST 18 2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDL.SESSION JUDGE KODAGU-MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET IN CRL.A.NO.5047/2024 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.138 OF N.I ACT 18812. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED JULY 30 2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT VIRAJPET IN C.C.NO.1290/2022 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.138 OF N.I ACT 1881 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:47078 CRL.RP No. 1641 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed by II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, in Crl.A.no.5047/2024 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2024 passed by Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Virajpet, in C.C.no.1290/2022, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Rudresh RS, learned counsel appearing for Chindanand Gopal Yavagall, counsel for petitioner submitted, revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). 3. It was submitted, on allegation that respondent (complainant) had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against petitioner (accused) alleging that on 05.02.2021 accused had purchased 26 bags of dry Robusta Cherry coffee weighing 50 Kgs at Rs.3,150/- per bag and paid Rs.8,900/- in cash to complainant and issued post-dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47078 CRL.RP No. 1641 of 2025 cheque no.55092 dated 30.01.2022 drawn on Sri Saraswathy Credit Souharda Sahakari Bank Ltd. Virajpet branch, which when presented for collection in complainant's bank i.e., Union Bank of India, Virajpet Branch, on 17.02.2022, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, though complainant got issued demand notice to accused on 21.02.2022, which was served on 26.02.2022, accused neither repaid amount nor replied, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Act. 4. It was submitted, accused appeared before trial Court denied allegations and sought to be tried. Thereafter, trial Court recorded evidence of complainant and got marked Exs.P.1 to P5. On appraisal of incriminating material, which accused denied, his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. It was submitted, accused did not lead oral or documentary evidence as he had substantiated defence in cross-examination of PW1. 5. It was firstly submitted, without proper consideration, trial Court convicted accused and even though - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47078 CRL.RP No. 1641 of 2025 appeal was filed same was dismissed without proper re- appreciation leading to file present revision petition. 6. It was submitted, accused had taken specific contention denying relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused. It was stated that cheque in question was issued as security for some other transaction and misused it to file false complaint. It was submitted there were no records produced to establish that accused had purchased coffee bags from complainant. No income tax returns or other records were produced. In such facts and circumstances, drawn presumption in favour of complainant was not justified and impugned judgments of conviction call for interference. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 8. From above, it is seen this revision is by accused challenging concurrent order of conviction under Section 138 of NI Act. Perusal of impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence reveal that both Courts have after independent assessment of material on record have arrived at conclusions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47078 CRL.RP No. 1641 of 2025 by assigning detailed reasons. 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 revision petition is normally confined to infraction of statutory provisions or where findings are established to be perverse. 9. Main ground urged against impugned judgments are perversity, firstly, denying relationship of creditor and debtor. To substantiate transaction, complainant had deposed as PW1 and also produced Ex.P.1- cheque, endorsement at Ex.P.2, Demand notice at Ex.P.3 and Exs.P.4 and 5 are postal receipt and acknowledgement. While passing impugned judgments trial Court observed that during cross-examination, accused did not deny coffee transaction with complainant. It was submitted, that Ex.P.1 cheque belonged to him, and bore his signature. Adoption of contention that cheque was issued for some other transaction leads to presumption that it was issued towards repayment of legally enforceable debt in favour of complainant. Though, it is rebuttable presumption, same could only by establishing probable defence. There are no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47078 CRL.RP No. 1641 of 2025 particulars elicited about other transaction for which cheque was stated to have been issued. Secondly, on service of demand notice, accused has not submitted reply. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, has held failure to issue reply leads to an inference against accused. Said benefit would also inure to complainant. Mere denial of transaction and setting up defence that cheque was issued as security would not sufficient to upset presumption. No ground of perversity in findings of trial Court as well as first appellate Court are established. Consequently, revision petition stands dismissed. In view of same, IA no.1/2025 filed for suspension of sentence is also dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74