- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49258 CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1439 OF 2018 BETWEEN: NARASIMHA, S/O H.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A MRS COLONY, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, R/O LAKYA VILLAGE AND POST, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …PETITIONER [BY SRI MANJUNATH N D., ADVOCATE (VC)] AND: M DHANANJAYA, S/O L.MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, C/O SUNITHA, NEAR SHARADHAMMA TEACHER HOSUE, II CROSS, VIDYANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA. 577 201. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI THYAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE (PH)] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 23.06.2018, PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.3861/2015 AND 2.ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.56/2018, DATED 03.12.2018. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49258 CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018 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 03.12.2018 passed by III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in Crl.A.no.56/2018 confirming judgment dated 23.06.2018 passed by III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Shivamogga, in C.C.no.3861/2015, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Manjunatah ND, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was against concurrent erroneous findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that towards discharge of loan borrowed from complainant, accused had issued cheque no.503676 dated 02.12.2013 for Rs.90,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Shivamogga, which when presented, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49258 CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018 returned dishonoured with endorsement "Funds Insufficient" on 07.12.2013 and accused failed to either reply or repay amount even complainant got issued demand notice dated 22.12.2013 by RPAD, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance accused pleaded not guilty and matter was set for trial, wherein complainant deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. Thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded after appraising him of incriminating material, which he denied. Thereafter accused deposed as DW1, but did not mark any documents. 5. Thereafter, however, trial Court convicted accused and directed him to pay fine amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. Even appeal filed was dismissed without re-appreciation, leading to this revision. 6. It was submitted impugned judgments called for interference on ground of perversity. It was firstly submitted, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49258 CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018 for domestic purpose accused borrowed Rs.90,000/- from complainant in September, 2013. 7. It was submitted, cheque was given as security to when accused's brother - Bettegowda borrowed hand-loan from complainant. Even though same was repaid, complainant had misused said cheque for present proceedings, without any relationship of debtor and creditor with accused. 8. It was alternatively submitted, complainant lacked financial capacity to lend money. Moreover, when accused was working in KEB and having regular income, there was no need for borrowing money. It was further submitted, claim of complainant that payment was made in cash which would be in violation of provisions of Income Tax Act, would also fortify contentions of accused. It was submitted, above factors would be sufficient to upset statutory presumption. Despite same, trial Court as well as Appellate Court passed impugned judgments relying mainly on statutory presumption. Therefore, impugned judgments suffered from perversity calling for interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49258 CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018 9. On other hand, Sri Thyagaraja S, learned counsel for complainant opposed petition by submitting that both Courts on proper appreciation of material on record, arrived at reasoned findings, leaving no scope for interference. On above grounds, sought dismissal of revision petition. 10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record. 11. This Revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity of findings as follows. 12. Insofar as denial of relationship of debtor and creditor and failure to produce any material other than cheque, very contention of accused that cheque was issued as security for hand-loan borrowed by his brother Bettegowda from complainant would amount to admission of signature on Ex.P1 - cheque and its issuance to complainant. Said admission would attract presumption about issuance of cheque was in discharge of legally enforceable debt as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49258 CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018 Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197, though same would be rebuttable and it would be open for respondent to upset same by setting up probable defence, omission to examine said Bettegowda would be glaring and fatal to such contention. 13. Further challenge of financial capacity of complainant to lend money, requires to be rejected firstly on ground that accused failed to set-up such a defence by issuing reply to demand notice, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, failure to reply would attract drawing of inference against accused. Secondly, it is contention of accused that his brother had borrowed loan from complainant. 14. Even contention about accused having sufficient income, would not by itself cast serious doubt about borrowing, in absence of any other material to corroborate same. 15. Likewise, contention about payment by complainant to accused in cash would be in violation of provisions of Income Tax Act, would require rejection in view of observations in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49258 CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018 Sanjabij Tari's case (supra) that any such violation would not be fatal for claims under NI Act. 16. Apart from above, it is seen that while passing impugned judgments, both Courts on appreciation of material on record, arrived at well-reasoned conclusions. Same are not shown to be perverse. Consequently, revision petition is without merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27