- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 187 OF 2024 BETWEEN: NIMISHAMBHA ENTERPRISES, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT SHWETHAS M C., W/O SRI MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, GROUND FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND, MANDYA CITY - 571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SAKARAJA N.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. CHIKKAMAKEGOWDA, S/O SRI LATE HUCCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.1269, SAHUKAR CHENNAIAH ROAD, T K LAYOUT, JANATHANAGAR, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MAHESHCHANDRA B N., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 22.11.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.179/2023B. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 21.04.2023 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU IN C.C.NO.10091/2021. C. ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. 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:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 22.11.2023 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.179/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.2023 passed by VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.no.10091/2021, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Sokoroja N.C., learned counsel appearing for Sri Sumanth L Bharadwaj, advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that present proceedings were initiated by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused was known to him since 10 years and borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant assuring to repay it within five months and issued post dated cheque bearing no.787662 dated 29.06.2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, (later Bank of Baroda), Mandya Main Branch, Mandya, which when presented for collection on 30.06.2021, returned dishonored with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and even when demand notice dated 29.07.2021 got issued by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024 complainant was served on accused on 04.08.2021, she failed to repay amount and on other hand had got issued untenable reply on 16.08.2021 and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial, whereupon, complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P12. On being explained incriminating material, which she denied, her statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused led defence evidence examining herself as DW-1 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D14. 4. It was submitted, accused had setup substantial defence alleging that complainant was running Chit business and cheques in question were collected as security for Chit subscription amount. It was contended that accused was financially sound and there was no need for borrowing money. It was submitted, Exhibits-D1 to D13 - Fixed Deposit Receipts ('FDR', for short) would substantiate financial capacity and would be sufficient to upset presumption. But, trial Court as well as Appellate Court based only on presumption under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024 Section 139 of NI Act, convicted accused which was perverse On said ground sought for allowing revision petition. 5. On other hand, Sri B.N. Maheshchandra, learned counsel for respondent (complainant) opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently held accused had committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and same could not be interfered with by re-appreciation of evidence in revision petition. On said ground sought for dismissal of revision petition. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments. 7. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr., reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460, has held that jurisdiction of Revisional Court against concurrent findings would normally be limited to examining whether findings suffer from perversity or whether there was any infraction with any statutory provisions. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024 8. Perversity of findings is alleged firstly, insofar as finding that issuance of Exhibit-P1 - cheque was towards legally enforceable debt. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court referred to specific admission by DW-1 in cross-examination that Exhibit-P1 was from her account and has her signature. Besides it is contended that Exhibit-P1 was issued as security for Chit transaction amount. Above factors would attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, which is sought to be rebutted by contending that there was no need for accused to borrow money as Exhibits-D1 to D13 - FDRs would indicate sufficient money was available with accused. 9. However, trial Court has noted admission by DW-1 that at time of bidding for tender works, there was need for submitting Exhibits-D1 to D13 towards performance guarantee and accused could not withdraw said amounts until conclusion of tender period. It also observed that accused failed to examine any other Chit subscriber to substantiate that complainant would collect signed blank cheques as security. Above material would indicate, though accused had setup defence but failed to probablize same. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52819 CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024 10. It is also seen that while passing impugned judgment, trial Court had referred to entire material available on record and arrived at reasoned conclusions, which are not established to be suffering from perversity. Even Appellate Court re-appreciated entire material on record, concurred with trial Court and dismissed appeal. Hence, no ground of perversity with findings of trial Court and Appellate Court are established. Revision petition is without merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35