- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1363 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. SAVITHRI W/O MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT 880, 1ST FLOOR 6TH MAIN, KAMALANAGAR BANGALORE-560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAIRAJ .G, ADVOCATE) AND: T.P. BARGESHAPPA OFFICE AT 68, 2ND FLOOR SERVICE ROAD OFF. WEST OF CHORD ROAD 2ND STAGE, MAHALAMIPURAM BENGALURU-560 086. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND PASSED BY THE LEARNED HONBLE LXI CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-62) IN CRL.APPEAL NO.656/2021 DATED 03.10.2023 AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.29765/2017 DATED 02.09.2021 AND Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023 ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER. 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 03.10.2023 passed by LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH- 62), in Crl.A.no.656/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2021 passed by XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.29765/2017, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Jairaj G., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision petition was by accused challenging concurrent erroneous findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused was well-known to him and had borrowed sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.07.2015 in order to tide financial distress - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023 by assuring to repay same within three months and by executing loan agreement. 3. And on demand for repayment, after lapse of said period, accused had issued cheque bearing no.374311 dated 15.12.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer' on 23.12.2016 and despite service of demand notice dated 29.12.2016 on 05.01.2017, accused failed to repay amount and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Whereupon, complainant examined himself and another as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which he denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter accused led rebuttal evidence by examining himself as DW.1 and got marked one document as Exhibit D1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023 5. It was submitted, though accused had set up various defences and substantiated same during cross- examination of PW.1 and as well as in rebuttal evidence, trial Court without proper appreciation convicted accused. Even appeal filed against same was dismissed without proper re-appreciation. Thus, judgments passed by both Courts suffered from perversity calling for interference. 6. It was submitted that accused was client of complainant, who was Chartered Accountant. Towards payment of income tax, accused had issued cheque to complainant. Same was misused for initiation of present proceedings. It was therefore submitted that there was no legally enforceable debt. Same is substantiated by fact that accused had issued direction to his Banker for stopping payment under Ex.D1. On said ground sought for allowing revision petition. 7. Respondent is served, but unrepresented. 8. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused impugned judgments and Trail Court record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023 9. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, mainly on ground of perversity insofar as finding that issuance of Ex.P2 - cheque was towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court took note of assertions by complainant that accused had borrowed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant on 25.07.2015 by executing a loan agreement agreeing to repay same within three months. Complainant deposed as PW.1 reiterating same and producing copy of loan agreement as Ex.P1. 10. Perusal of Ex.P1 would indicate that agreement is signed by accused. Amount mentioned in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 - cheque tally, date of lending also tallies. Trial Court noted that there was due compliance with provisions of Section 138 of NI Act, insofar as presentation of cheque; its dishonor; issuance of demand notice and filing of complaint. It is seen that PW.1 has been cross-examined by accused. It is indeed an admission about accused having filed income tax returns for years 2012- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 through complainant but, nothing more is elicited. 11. During cross-examination, accused had also set up defence disputing financial capacity of complainant. However, complainant stated that his annual income was Rs.12,00,000/- and lending of money was reflected in his income tax returns. In cross-examination, suggestions are made disputing source of money for lending. However, complainant has stated that said amount was available in cash with him. Insofar as Ex.P1, there is no cross- examination as would dispute Ex.P1. 12. Besides above, execution of cheque and its issuance to complainant by accused is not disputed. This would attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. In his deposition, accused has stated that cheque in question was issued towards TDS amount which were could not be completed and at that time complainant had failed to return cheque. If it were so, intimation to Banker for stopping payment would have been made immediately during 2015 and not after issuance of demand notice in question. There is also no cross-examination about hand writings on cheque. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49551 CRL.RP No. 1363 of 2023 13. Besides above, there is failure on part of accused to reply to demand notice, which would lead to drawing of inference against accused. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court and Appellate Court have referred to contentions urged and rightly extended presumption under Section 139 of NI Act in favour of complainant and held failure on part of accused to upset same. No grounds of perversity made out. Revision petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40