- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1630 CRL.RP No. 100314 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100314 OF 2021 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: MRUTUNJAYA S/O. MAILARAPAP SUNAGAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOURISHANKAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115. … PETITIONER (BY KUM. VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.R.KUPPERLUR, ADVOCATE) AND: MARUTHI S/O. BASAPPA KUSAGURU, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. SUNAGAR ONI, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 30.08.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.30/2020 AS WELL AS JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 26.02.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, RANEBENNUR, IN C.C.NO.226/2018 ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 138 OF N.I ACT. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.30 14:27:31 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1630 CRL.RP No. 100314 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment/order dated 30.08.2021 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) in Crl.Appeal no.30/2020 and judgment/order dated 26.02.2020 passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur in C.C.no.226/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Kum.Vinaya Kuppelur, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that impugned judgments/orders were unsustainable and contrary to law. It was submitted, as per case of respondent (complainant), petitioner had issued cheque towards discharge of loan of Rs.2,00,000/- stated to have been borrowed by petitioner from complainant. It was submitted, petitioner had outright denied any financial transaction. Such being case, raising of presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’ for short), that issuance of cheque in favour of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1630 CRL.RP No. 100314 of 2021 complainant was towards discharge of legally recoverable debt by both Courts were not justified. 3. It was submitted, Ex.P1-cheque dated 15.12.2015 was admittedly drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Kumarapattanam Branch, Haveri District. But account at that branch was closed by petitioner on 18.06.2011. Therefore, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would not be available. It was further submitted, before trial Court, petitioner had merely stated that he had kept 10 signed cheques including Ex.P1 in his gym at Ranebennur and Ex.P1 was stolen by complainant and misused. But in its impugned judgment, trial Court observed that petitioner had admitted his signature ‘as well as issuance of cheque’. Therefore impugned order would be perverse. It was further submitted, during cross- examination, PW.1 admitted that relationship between petitioner and complainant was soured due to property litigation. Even petitioner as DW.1 in his examination-in-chief, had stated about litigation between complainant and his brother/sisters which was running for 18 years wherein, he had assisted one of parties which led to spoiling of relationship. It was further submitted, fact that complainant had not disclosed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1630 CRL.RP No. 100314 of 2021 particulars of date, time and place of payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to petitioner would raise serious doubt about issuance of cheque towards legally recoverable debt especially when petitioner had vehemently denied need for loan from complainant as well as capacity of complainant to pay such amount. 4. It was submitted, while passing impugned judgment, First Appellate Court had sought to reinforce presumption by stating that petitioner had failed to file police complaint in case (as contended by him) Ex.P1-cheque was stolen, which would be contrary to law. Therefore, both judgments were liable for interference. 5. Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for complainant on other hand opposed petition. It was submitted, scope for interference with concurrent findings by trial Court and Appellate Court in revision petition filed under Section 397 of CrPC was extremely limited. It was submitted, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 had clarified distinction between presumption in law and presumption of fact. It was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1630 CRL.RP No. 100314 of 2021 submitted, when petitioner had admitted signing cheque, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would place burden of proof on accused and unless accused adduced evidence to raise reasonable doubt it would be presumed that holder of admitted cheque was towards discharge of legally recoverable debt. It was submitted, while passing impugned judgment/order, trial Court as well as Appellate Court had taken note of fact that petitioner admitted signing cheque. As he failed to substantiate doubt presumption would prevail. Therefore, there was no error calling for interference. 6. Insofar as defence espoused about closure of account at Kumarapattanam Branch, complainant had examined Branch Manager of State Bank of Mysore, Ranebennur as PW.2 and Branch Manager of State Bank of Mysore, Kumarapattanam Branch as PW.3. In his deposition, PW.3 had admitted that there was no closure of account but there was transfer of account from Kumarapattanam Branch to Ranebennur Branch with same account number. It was submitted, when cheque was presented for collection, same had returned with endorsement about insufficient funds and not closure of account. Therefore, ingredients for commission of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1630 CRL.RP No. 100314 of 2021 offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act were established justifying findings of both Courts. On above grounds, sought dismissal of petition. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments/orders and records. 8. From above, only point that arises for consideration is: “Whether impugned judgments/orders suffer from perversity calling for interference?” 9. It is seen in instance case, petitioner has urged two main grounds. Firstly, denial of legally recoverable debt and secondly, about closure of account at Drawee Branch much prior to date of cheque. 10. Insofar as first contention, indeed petitioner has elicited about partition suit filed by complainant’s brother having been decreed against him and about not showing debt due from petitioner in his income tax returns. In addition, petitioner examined as DW1 has stated that civil litigation between complainant and his brother had continued for 18 years wherein, petitioner had assisted one of sisters of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1630 CRL.RP No. 100314 of 2021 complainant which spoilt relation between petitioner and complainant. 11. However, mere setting up of a defence vague without leading specific evidence which would probabilize same would not suffice. While passing impugned judgments/orders, both Courts have taken note of fact that petitioner contended that Ex.P1 along with 9 other cheques were signed and kept by him in his gym as they were intended to be given towards purchase of Tipper. But after, Ex.P1 was stolen, he had not given any police complaint or stop payment intimation to banker. By said reasoning, they held defence set up would not probabilize, much less caste reasonable doubt. 12. Insofar as second ground about Ex.P1 being drawn on Kamarpattanam Branch and said account being closed about four years prior to date of issuance of cheque, it is seen both Courts have taken note of deposition by PW.3 that there was no closure of account at Kumarapattanam Branch, but same was transferred to Ranebennur Branch and continued with same account number. In fact, it is elicited from PW.3 that in case of closure of account, bankers obtained return of unused - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1630 CRL.RP No. 100314 of 2021 cheques unlike in present case. It is seen, petitioner failed to place on record any endorsement by him about surrender of unused cheques being surrendered by mentioning that Ex.P1 was stolen. As clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh’s case (supra), presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, where signing of cheque is admitted would include presumption about its issuance to holder. Therefore, grounds urged by petitioner would be untenable. 13. In view of fact that both Courts have concurrently held against petitioner, scope for interference would be limited to examining questions of law and not finding of fact. Therefore, no ground to interfere. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of revision petition, I.A.no.1/2024 is dismissed as unnecessary. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15