- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1590 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. NAGARAJ ACHARYA, S/O ANANDA RAYA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT SIT NO.88, 5TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA, MANGALURU. PROPRIETOR: SRI DEVI FURNITURES, SHREYA RESIDENCY BUILDING, JARANDAYA DAIVASTANA, GANESHPUR, KATIPALLA, KAIKAMBA, MANGALURU , D K DISTRICT - 575 030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SACHIN K. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. RAVINDRA ACHARYA S/O DAMODHAR ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT SITE NO.190, 2ND BLOCK, KATIPALLA, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 030. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.11.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.78/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 18.12.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1284/2017 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C. (V COURT), MANGALURU, D.K. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRL.RP AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023 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 15.11.2023 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.no.78/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2020 passed by JMFC (V Court), Mangaluru, D.K., in C.C.no.1284/2017, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Sachin K. Naik, learned counsel appearing for Sri Rajashekar S., advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that instant proceedings arise out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused had obtained hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in month of October, 2016, for his marriage, promising to repay it after marriage. Though accused got married on 02.11.2016, but failed to repay amount and on demand issued cheque bearing no.317315 dated 14.08.2017 drawn on Corporation Bank, Kulur Branch, Mangalore, which when presented for collection on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023 14.08.2017, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 17.08.2017 and thereafter accused failed to repay amount even after receipt of demand notice dated 22.08.2017 got issued by complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW- 1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P7. It was submitted, due to prevalence of Covid-19 pandemic, complainant could not be cross-examined and by taking cross-examination as 'nil', statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. Accused was unable to lead defence evidence. Trial Court proceeded to pass impugned judgment convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It was submitted, even appeal filed there against was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision petition. 4. It was firstly submitted either in demand notice or in complaint or in deposition, PW-1 had disclosed mode of payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed. Same would cast doubt - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023 about payment. Apart from above, complainant had failed to establish his financial capacity to lend such money. Both Courts had failed to consider these factors while passing impugned judgment and therefore suffered from perversity calling for interference. 5. None appears for respondent. 6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record. 7. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Main ground of challenge is perversity of findings firstly, non-disclosure of mode of payment would cast doubt and secondly, failure to establish financial capacity. Admittedly, there is no cross-examination of PW-1 by accused. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court observed that despite providing opportunity there was failure on part of accused to cross-examine. While Appellate Court observed that after evidence of PW-1 was recorded on 26.12.2018, matter was adjourned on 11 occasions i.e. 29.01.2019, 11.03.2019, 23.04.2019, 29.05.2019, 20.06.2019, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023 12.07.2019, 24.07.2019, 06.08.2019, 14.08.2019, 22.08.2019 for his cross-examination. On 07.09.2019, cross-examination was taken as 'nil'. 8. After recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of CrPC on 05.11.2019, matter was adjourned to 29.11.2019 when application for recall of PW-1 for cross- examination was allowed and opportunity to cross-examine was provided on 14.12.2019, 22.01.2020, 10.02.2020 and 09.03.2020. But, opportunity was not availed. Consequently cross-examination was taken as 'nil' and matter was proceeded with. 9. Apart from above, Exhibits-P4 to P7 would establish service of Exhibit-P3 - demand notice on accused. Admittedly, no reply is issued. As per observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, an inference would require to be drawn against accused. It is seen that while passing impugned judgments, trial Court as well as Appellate Court have on appreciation of entire material on record and finding consistency in material for complainant proceeded to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54284 CRL.RP No. 1590 of 2023 pass impugned judgments convicting accused. Same is by arriving at reasoned conclusions. None of grounds urged would establish perversity. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29