- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53607 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 418 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRA U., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE T. KRISHNA, R/A JANATHA COLONY, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 232. …PETITIONER (BY Ms. K. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. JAGADEESH POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O BABU POOJARY, R/O DOOR NO.8/526, TUNGA SADANA, NARASIBETTU VITTALVADI, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.M.ANFAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.502/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1986/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUNDAPURA AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53607 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, sitting at Kundapura, in Crl.A.no.502/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2022 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, in C.C.no.1986/2013, this revision petition is filed. 2. Ms.K Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for Sri Chandranath Ariga, K, counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, present revision was filed challenging erroneous judgments of convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It was submitted, present proceedings arises out of a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had issued a cheque no.088804 for Rs.90,000/- in favour of complainant drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kundapura Main branch towards discharge of legally recoverable debt, but which when presented returned dishonoured with endorsement on 28.02.2013 as 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter when demand notice was issued by complainant, same returned with postal shara as 'not claimed' and thereafter accused had failed to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53607 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2024 repay amount within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 4. On explaining incriminating material against him, accused denied same and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, accused led defence evidence by examining himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D.2. It was submitted, accused had setup substantial defence that accused was an employee under complainant and kept cheque book with signed cheques in a bag in shop, which was stolen and present proceedings initiated by complainant. However, without proper consideration, trial Court convicted accused. Even appeal filed by accused before appellate Court was dismissed without re- appreciation. Therefore, impugned judgments suffered from perversity and called for interference. 4. On other hand, Sri S.M.Anfal, learned counsel appearing for Sri K Prasanna Shetty, counsel for respondent opposed revision. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53607 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2024 5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and records. 6. From above, it is seen revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent finding of both Courts for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held that scope for interference against concurrent findings would be limited by examining whether finding suffer from perversity or infraction of statutory provisions. Sole ground urged is about perversity of findings of trial Court insofar as Ex.P.1- cheque was issued towards legal enforceable debt. It is seen that while passing impugned judgment trial Court took note of contents of complaint, Ex.P.3- demand notice and deposition of complainant as PW1 corroborated by cheque, bank endorsement, demand notice and unserved postal cover marked as Exs.P.1 to 4. In view of contention that accused had kept signed cheques in a bag in complainant's shop, which was stolen, there would be admission of accused's signature on Ex.P.1-cheque. Thus, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53607 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2024 Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would be attracted. Said presumption though rebuttable by setting up probable defence, only effort for rebuttal is contending that cheques were stolen. Admittedly, date on which they were stolen is not disclosed. No police complaint lodged nor intimation to banker to stop payment is issued. This would dilute thrust of defence. 7. Besides, there is no challenge about infraction with timeline for presentation of cheque, issuance of demand notice, on intimation of dishonour and filing of private complaint within time and lapse of time for making repayment. Thus, it is seen that trial Court on confirming existence of foundational facts has proceeded to convict accused by assigning presumption. Same would be in accordance with law. Even appellate Court while passing impugned judgment has re-appreciated material on record. No case of perversity is made. Revision petition is without merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47