Karnataka High Court
G L Vinayakumar vs N Girish on 19 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 208 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
G L VINAYAKUMAR,
S/O L.LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.242, 3RD CROSS,
PANCHASHEELA NAGAR, MUDALAPALYA,
NAGARABHAVI ROAD,
VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 092.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI R.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
N. GIRISH,
S/O LATE NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NAGUNAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEHIND SMB BANK,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
Digitally signed by MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
GEETHAKUMARI ...RESPONDENT
PARLATTAYA S [BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE (VC)]
Location: High
Court of Karnataka THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA DATED 29.11.2022 IN
CRL.A.NO.5007/2018 AND ALSO C.C.NO.797/2010 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, SRIRANGAPATNA
DATED 01.02.2018 BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 29.11.2022 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting as Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.no.5007/2018 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in C.C.no.797/2010, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri B.R. Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat, advocate for petitioner submitted that revision petition is by accused against concurrent erroneous findings, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short).
3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint against accused under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused was well-known to him and had borrowed sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to clear hand loans on 20.12.2009 and towards repayment had issued post dated cheque bearing no.593252 -3- NC: 2025:KHC:47614 CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023 HC-KAR dated 20.01.2010 drawn on Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Co- Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore, in favour of complainant and assured that said cheque would be honoured on presentation.
4. However when cheque was presented for collection, it returned with endorsement on 20.04.2010 as 'funds insufficient' and thereafter even when demand notice got issued by complainant was served on 30.04.2010, accused got issued false reply on 05.05.2010 and failed to repay amount, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
5. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charge and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Esx.P1 to P12. On being informed about incriminating material, accused denied same and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter accused stepped into witness-box as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.
6. It was submitted, though in cross-examination of PW.1 as well as in his deposition, accused had raised substantial defenses, firstly denying any transactional -4- NC: 2025:KHC:47614 CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023 HC-KAR relationship with complainant i.e., denying existence of relationship of creditor and debtor, complainant without producing any material to substantiate transaction, Trial Court had proceeded to pass order of conviction against accused.
7. It was further submitted, accused had taken a specific contention that cheque in question was issued to third party i.e., Ashwathanarayana, who had obtained decree against accused and had filed Execution Petition no.48/2012 on file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Maddur, wherein accused had taken very same contention that Decree Holder - Ashwathanarayana had illegally taken three blank cheques and two promissory notes from accused and had got filed cheque dishonoured through different persons such as Girish and Mahadevu, with whom accused did not have any financial transactions.
8. Both Trial Court and Appellate Court ignored said material and that accused had probablized his defense and passed impugned orders of conviction which were contrary to material on record and as such perverse. On said grounds sought for allowing revision petition. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47614 CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023 HC-KAR
9. On other hand, Sri Shridhara K., learned counsel for complainant appearing through Video Conferencing opposed petition. It was submitted that revision petition was against concurrent findings and scope for interference was limited. Though contention was taken that cheque in question was issued to Ashwathanarayana, no steps were taken to examine said Ashwathanarayana nor to intimate bank to stop payment. It was submitted, both Courts on appreciation of material on record had arrived at reasoned conclusions and there was no scope for interference.
10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record.
11. This revision petition is by accused against concurrent judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground that findings of both Courts suffer from perversity. Firstly, on ground that despite accused denying transactional relationship with complainant, without any justification presumption drawn was contrary to law. Even fact that cheques were illegally taken by Ashwathanarayana would upset presumption. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:47614 CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023 HC-KAR
12. While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court has noted that complainant stated about accused being known to him and on said basis, borrowing sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant for clearing his hand loans obtained from others. It was complainant's case that towards repayment of said hand loans, post-dated cheque was given. Accused has cross- examined PW.1 rather extensively but, failed to elicit any admission. Thus only effort is denying transactional relationship and suggesting that cheque was issued to someone else, was misused, which are denied.
13. Taking such defense would amount to admission of signature on cheque giving rise to presumption in favour of complainant that cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt. Though said presumption is rebuttable, mere making suggestions which are denied, would not be sufficient to upset same.
14. It is also seen, Trial Court has noted that there was no effort on part of accused to examine Ashwathanarayana or any other persons to substantiate that cheque was issued to him. At same time, it is seen that Ex.P1- cheque is in name of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47614 CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023 HC-KAR complainant and on presentation returned with endorsement as 'insufficient funds'. In case, cheque was issued to third party under duress or force, nothing prevented accused from issuing intimation to Bank for stopping payment.
15. Though learned counsel for petitioner sought to rely upon Ex.D2, perusal would reveal that it is accused's objections against Execution Petition filed by Ashwathanarayana. Thus Ex.D2, at best would be self-serving statement and cannot be treated as acceptable evidence to probabilize defense. Said factor would also go against accused. It is seen that while passing impugned judgments, Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have appreciated material on record and arrived at reasoned conclusions. Hence, no case of perversity is established. Revision petition is without merit and is thus dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51