- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 673 OF 2022 BETWEEN: MRS RINKU DESHPANDE W/O MR. NITESH DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.123, 12TH FLOOR, TOWER-4 PEBBLEBAY APARTMENT, R M V II STAGE, NAGASHETTYHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI B.R.SUHIL KUMAR NAIDU S/O RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.185, 2ND G MAIN 11TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED XX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.95/2018 DATED 11.06.2019 SO FAR IT RELATES TO CHEQUE BEARING NO.198447 (EX-P.2) AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1503/2019 DATED 07.04.2022. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 07.04.2022 passed by LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.1503/2019 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2019 passed by XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C.no.95/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Rakesh B. Bhat, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings. It was submitted, on an allegation that petitioner/accused was a friend of respondent/complainant had obtained hand loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for family legal necessities and for business purposes agreeing to return same within two years with interest at rate of 1% per month, but failed to return same and on demand had issued two post dated cheques bearing no.293953 dated 23.10.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/- and 198447 dated 23.10.2017 for Rs.7,75,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore, which when presented for collection through - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022 petitioner's Banker - UCO Bank, Peenya, returned dishonoured wit endorsement amount insufficient/payment stopped by drawer. 3. It is further alleged that complainant had got issued common legal notice in respect of both cheques on 22.11.2017, which was served on accused on 23.11.2017, but accused failed to reply or repay amount, thereby committing offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short), had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('Cr.P.C', for short). 4. On appearance, accused denied allegation and sought to be tried. Complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Thereafter statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied incriminating material against him as false and led rebuttal evidence, examining himself as DW.1 and Manager of IDBI Bank as DW.2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4. 5. It was submitted, defence setup by accused was that there was repayment of Rs.13,00,000/- and accused was due a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- only and signature on one of cheque was denied and disputed. DW.2 deposed about - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022 signature on Ex.P1 - cheque differing from Bank records. Considering same, trial Court passed order of conviction only insofar as second cheque no.198447 and acquitted accused insofar as first cheque. Accused was directed to pay fine amount of Rs.9,20,000/- and in default undergo simple imprisonment for eight months. Aggrieved thereby, accused preferred Criminal Appeal no.1503/2019 before Appellate Court. 6. Main ground urged before Appellate Court was about maintainability of common complaint in respect of two cheques by issuing common demand notice. It is contended that without proper appreciation, appeal was dismissed. 7. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2019, learned counsel submitted Hon'ble Supreme Court had on exhaustive review of legal position held interpretation of words "said amount of money" occurring in Section 138 of NI Act, could only mean amount mentioned in cheque and in case of variation between amount demanded and mentioned in cheque, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022 demand notice would be rendered defective and consequently conviction cannot be sustained. 8. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused impugned judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, held scope for interference with concurrent order of conviction in revision petition would be limited to examining whether order of conviction is infraction of statutory provision or suffer from perversity. 10. Challenge herein is as per complainant's case, accused had borrowed total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from complainant and agreeing to repay same within two years with 1% of interest. And on demand for repayment, had issued two cheques one for Rs.10,00,000/- and another for Rs.7,75,000/-. In legal notice issued at Ex.P5, demand made for a consolidated amount of Rs.17,75,000/-. And there was discrepancy insofar as signature on Ex.P1 - cheque as deposed by DW.2 leading to acquittal insofar as Ex.P1 - cheque and conviction only on Ex.P2 - cheque. As amount mentioned in Ex.P2 - cheque was Rs.7,75,000/-, but in Ex.P5 - demand - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022 notice was for Rs.17,75,000/-, ratio laid down in Kaveri Plastics's case (supra) would be attracted and conviction rendered unsustainable. 11. In her deposition as DW.1, accused admitted knowing complainant and borrowing Rs.20,00,000/-. She however claimed to have returned Rs.13,00,000/- by cash and claimed balance payable was only Rs.7,00,000/- and produced acknowledgment as Ex.D1. She dispute her signature on Ex.P1 - cheque and claimed that it was fraudulently obtained from her company. She deposed that she had instructed for presenting of Ex.P2 - cheque some time later as there was insufficient balance and dishonor was because Ex.P2 was presented before instruction of accused. Thus, there is categorical admission by accused about issuance of Ex.P2 - cheque to complainant with insufficient funds in account. 12. Perusal of Ex.P5 - legal notice would reveal that complainant had stated particulars of both cheques in para-2 but demand was for total amount of both cheques. Ground now urged is that due to acquittal of accused in respect of Ex.P1 - cheque on ground of discrepancy in signature, amount demanded would not match with cheque amount in Ex.P2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022 13. In view of admission by accused that Ex.P2 - cheque was issued for legal recoverable debt to complainant and issuance of cheque with knowledge about insufficient funds in her account, merely on ground that demand was of amount covering both cheques, it cannot be held that demand was defective in view of acquittal in respect of one of cheques. 14. Under above circumstances, ratio laid down in Kaveri Plastics's case (supra) would not attracted. Grounds urged by petitioner to escape liability are too hyper technical and not meritorious. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25