- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52986 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2025 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. 418 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATHA GOWDA, S/O THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A MOSARAHALLI VILLAGE, BARANDUR POST, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 245. …PETITIONER [BY SMT. HEENA S A., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: SRI PRASHANTHA B J., S/O JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A MOSARAHALLI VILLAGE, BARANDUR POST, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 245. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI R.P. MUNJOJI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE (PH)] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO I. ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN C.C.NO.2331/2017, PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, BY ITS ORDER DATED 01.03.2023. II. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5099/2023, PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI, BY ITS ORDER DATED 20.01.2025 AND BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. 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:52986 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 20.01.2025 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Bhadravathi, allowing appeal in part by modifying order of sentence dated 01.03.2023 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, in C.C.no.2331/2017, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Vijayakumar S.C., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that present revision arises out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was well acquainted with complainant and expressing financial difficulty borrowed Rs.4,50,000/- from complainant on 02.01.2016, agreeing to repay same within two months. And further stated at that time, accused had issued posted-dated cheque no.017908 dated 01.03.2016 drawn on Union Bank of India, Bhadravathi Branch, for Rs.4,50,000/- which when presented after lapse of said time, returned dishonoured on 21.03.2016 as 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter when same was intimated to accused, on his instructions, it was re-presented, but - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52986 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2025 dishonored again as 'insufficient funds' on 26.05.2016. Thereafter even when demand notice dated 09.06.2016 got issued by complainant was served on accused on 10.06.2016, accused did not reply and failed to repay, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 8. On appraisal of incriminating material, which was denied, accused did not choose to lead defence evidence. It was submitted, accused had setup several defences, namely, disputing financial capacity of complainant to lend substantiated by admission in cross-examination of PW.1 that there was no prior transaction, would cast doubt about lending of amount in question without documentation. It was submitted, accused also contended that he had borrowed only Rs.25,000/- from complainant for lorry tyers and issued cheque in question as security for repayment. It was submitted both Courts did not appreciate said factors in proper perspective and same led to passing impugned judgments, which would be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52986 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2025 contrary to law and as such, perverse. On said ground called for interference. 4. On other hand, Sri R.P. Munjoji, learned counsel appearing for Sri M.R. Hiremathad, learned counsel for respondent opposed revision. 5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and copies of deposition and exhibits are made available to this Court by learned counsel for petitioner. 6. This revision 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 in a revision petition is normally confined to examining infraction of statutory provisions or findings are perverse. In instant case, grounds alleged are perversity insofar as finding about issuance of cheque was to discharge legally enforceable debt and finding about financial capacity of complainant to lend money and failure to consider fact that cheque in question was issued - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52986 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2025 as security for loan of Rs.25,000/- borrowed by accused. First ground of challenge is by referring to admission in cross- examination of PW1 that transaction in question was first transaction between them. When complainant stated about knowing accused very well, failure to secure loan transaction with documents would not cast doubt. 7. Further, perusal of cross-examination of PW1 does not reveal any suggestion made or admission elicited that complainant had himself taken loan. Therefore, challenge against financial capacity would also fall to ground. Apart from fact that accused had failed to reply demand notice would also draw adverse inference as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069. 8. Lastly, contention that cheque in question was issued as security is noted only to be rejected, firstly on ground that such defence was not taken up at earliest instance i.e., at time of reply and secondly on ground that there is no admission elicited to probablize same. 9. At this stage, it is also contended that trial Court has failed to properly record statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52986 CRL.RP No. 418 of 2025 which would be in violation of principles of natural justice. Insofar as want of recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it is seen that trial Court in para no.6 of judgment as well as appellate Court in para no.24 respectively, have recorded due compliance of requirement of law. Appellate Court has specifically stated despite giving sufficient opportunities accused did not appear. Therefore, even said contention is not substantiated. Thus, none of grounds urged would establish impugned judgment as suffering from perversity. It is seen that both Courts had passed impugned judgments by referring to entire material on record and by assigning reasons. Thus, revision is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46