- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47077 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1316 OF 2025 BETWEEN: PRABHAKARA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O KAMPU, R/AT D 2-10 AMMUNJE SARASWATHI NAGARA, UPPOOR VILLAGE, THENKABETTU POST, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: UPPOOR VYASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD., HEAD OFFICE AT UPPOOR, THENKABETTU, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576101 REP BY ITS CEO, UDUPI TALUK, AND DISTRICT PIN -576 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ACHARYA GURURAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2025 PASSED IN CRL.CASE NO.47/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C UDUPI AND THE CONFIRMATION OF SAID JUDGMENT BY JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.12/2025 BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UDUPI BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47077 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Udupi, in Crl.A.no.12/2025 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2025 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Udupi, in CC no.47/2024, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Krishnaswamy S, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, revision petition was by petitioner (accused) against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). 3. It was submitted, complainant (respondent) had filed a private complaint against petitioner (accused) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that it was a registered Seva Sahakari Sangha, had lent a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh on 27.09.2021 to accused, who executed loan agreements, agreeing to repay loan amount with interest 14% per annum. Thereafter accused failed to pay installments as agreed. When dues of accused reached Rs.1,93,034/-, loan account was declared as non- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47077 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2025 performing asset. On demand, accused had issued cheque no.129448 on 20.10.2023 for Rs,1,93,034/- drawn on Canara Bank, Kunjibettu Branch, Udupi, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'Account blocked'. And thereafter, even when demand notice was issued on 09.11.2023 was duly served, accused failed to repay amount or reply, thereby committed offence. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial, whereupon an official of society was examined as PW1 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. On appraisal of incriminating material which was denied by accused, statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC., was recorded. Thereafter trial Court proceeded to convict accused and imposed sentence of fine of Rs.1,98,034/- and in default to undergo SI for a period of three months. Aggrieved, accused had filed Crl.A.no.12/2025. It was submitted, without proper consideration, same was dismissed. Challenging same, this revision petition was filed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner rather candidly submitted, there was settlement between parties before first - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47077 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2025 appellate Court and since accused was unable to repay amount within time line, he was seeking for extension of grant of time for repayment until December, 2025. 6. On other hand, Sri.Acharaya Gururaja Gopal, learned counsel for complainant opposed petition. It was submitted, as per terms of joint memo filed before first appellate Court, accused had agreed to pay cheque amount and part payment of Rs.30,000/- by complainant had failed to repay balance amount of Rs.1,63,000/- within agreed time. It was submitted, joint memo itself indicated acceptance of full liability in case of non-compliance and hence there was no merit in revision. Besides, trial Court on appreciation of entire facts and circumstances had passed reasoned order. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 8. From above, it is seen this revision is by accused challenging concurrent order of conviction under Section 138 of NI Act. Only ground urged for that enlarging time for payment of money as agreed in appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47077 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2025 of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for interference in revision petition is normally confined to infraction of statutory provisions or where findings are established to be perverse. No such contentions are urged. 9. It is also seen that perusal of first appellate Court records would indicate that parties have filed joint memo, wherein accused had agreed to pay balance amount in installments, but failed to comply. When joint memo is filed before Court, it would amount to an undertaking. Failure to comply with said timeline would not provide cause of action for accused to challenge said order. Revision petition is totally devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69