- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53101 CRL.RP No. 379 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 379 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O LATE CHAYABBA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND MASJID, ANGARAGUNDI, BAIKAMPADY POST, MANGALURU - 575 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEDN, ADVOCATE) AND: M/s. PRAVEEN CREDIT SAUHARDA CO. OP NIYAMITHA, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, EMBASSY PLAZA, PUMPWELL, MANGALURU - 575 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HARSHA G. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE 21.11.2022 MADE IN C.C.NO.1678/2014 BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MANGALURU AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2024 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.245/2022 BY THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE. 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 ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53101 CRL.RP No. 379 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 20.01.2024 passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalurur, in Crl.A.no.245/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2022 passed by IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Mangaluru, in C.C.no.1678/2014, this revision petition is filed. 2. Smt.Haleema Ameen, learned counsel appearing for Sri Ashok Kumar Shetty K., advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that this revision petition is filed challenging current erroneous judgments, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was stated that present proceedings were initiated by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused had approached complainant for vehicle loan for purchase of TATA Tipper bearing registration no.KA-03-A-3238 and obtained loan of Rs.2,25,000/- on 06.04.2011. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53101 CRL.RP No. 379 of 2024 3. It was stated that loan agreement and promissory note for repayment of loan were executed and accused had issued cheque no.891201 dated 21.08.2013 for Rs.3,16,150/- drawn on Indian Bank, Pumpwell Junction, Mangalore branch, which when presented, returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 21.08.2013 and even when demand notice was got issued by complainant, same returned to sender with endorsement 'addressee left India' on 28.03.2013 and having failed to repay amount within time, accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. On appearance, accused pleaded not guilty and sought trial. Complainant examined its Accounts Officer as PW- 1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P9. On being explained incriminating material, accused denied same. His statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D5. 5. It was submitted, accused had setup substantial defence that accused was not borrower, but was surety for vehicle loan availed by one Ashraf and had issued cheque for surety purposes and that there was no legally enforceable debt - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53101 CRL.RP No. 379 of 2024 for issuance of Exhibit-P2 - cheque, without proper appreciation trial Court convicted accused. Even appeal filed there against was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision. It was submitted that impugned judgments suffered from perversity and sought interference. 6. It was submitted, in his deposition, DW-1 had specifically stated that he had not purchased any vehicle or obtained loan. But had stated that one Ashraf had taken him to complainant - Bank and opened account and had got him to sign certain documents by stating that same was as surety for vehicle loan. It was stated, accused was working at Saudi Arabia since for 25 years and transactions had occurred while he was not in country. Even demand notice was not duly served. Further, Exhibit-D3 - extract of RC of vehicle for which loan was stated to have been taken did not reflect name of accused as owner. Same would substantiate defence. In view of same, impugned order of conviction based on presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, would be contrary to material on record and sought for allowing revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53101 CRL.RP No. 379 of 2024 7. On other hand, Sri Harsha G., learned counsel appearing for Sri Sachin B.S., advocate for respondent (complainant) opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts on appreciation of material on record concurrently convicted accused and there was no scope for interference. It was submitted, vehicle loan was taken for purchase of a Pre- owned vehicle. Exhibit-D3 would show name of Anjunappa Y.B., as owner of vehicle prior to loan in question. 8. It was submitted, in his deposition, accused had admitted visiting Bank, opening account, signing documents and issuance of cheque. Therefore, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would be available for complainant. Both Courts had passed impugned orders of conviction based on presumption and failure of accused to upset said presumption. On said ground sought for dismissal of revision petition. 9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record. 10. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting him for offence punishable - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53101 CRL.RP No. 379 of 2024 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. 11. Impugned judgments are challenged on ground of perversity firstly, insofar as existence of legally enforceable debt. To substantiate transaction, complainant not only examined its Accounts Officer as PW-1, but also produced authorisation letter as Exhibit-P1, cheque as Exhibit-P2, Bank endorsement as Exhibit-P3, demand notice as Exhibit-P4 along with postal acknowledgement as Exhibit-P5, loan application, amount received acknowledgment, promissory note and loan account statement as Exhibits-P6 to P9. 12. Though in cross-examination of PW-1 as well as in his deposition, accused sought to contend that he had acted as surety and executed Exhibit-P2 for security purposes of loan obtained by Ashraf, same is not substantiated with any material. On other hand, there is specific admission by accused - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53101 CRL.RP No. 379 of 2024 that in April, 2011 about 15 to 20 days prior to loan in question, Ashraf had taken accused to Bank opened account and got issued cheque book. From said cheque book, Ashraf had taken signature of accused on 5 to 6 blank cheques and issued to bank. 13. In cross-examination, accused admitted that he had not taken any action against Ashraf, who was his distant relative, would admitted his signature on Exhibit-P2 - cheque and its issuance to complainant. Exhibits-P6 to P8 would indicate accused had executed loan agreement and receipt for having received amount lent and execution of promissory note in favour of complainant. Same would corroborate complainant's version. Apart from above, account statement maintained by complainant - Bank in course of its business would also lend credence. 14. Even if as contented, Ashraf had misused accused for obtaining loan were true, failure of accused to initiate any action against said Ashraf would dilute thrust of his defence. Thus, it cannot be stated that there is rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Both Courts have passed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53101 CRL.RP No. 379 of 2024 impugned judgments by applying presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act, no case of perverse is made out. Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45