[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Maruthi N Anvekar vs K.S. Ashok Kumar on 1 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49991
CRL.RP No. 376 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 376 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MARUTHI N ANVEKAR,
S/O NARAYANA G ANVEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O BEHIND GANESHA SAW MILL,
BASAVANAHALLI EXTENSION,
CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI YASHWANTH M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
K.S. ASHOK KUMAR,
S/O SHIVARAM,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/O KEMPANAHALLI,
by ANUSHA V CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 101.
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI KRISHNA MURTHY N., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2024 PASSED BY II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.137/2023 BY CONFIRMING JUDGMENT DATED
19.07.2023 PASSED BY I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.744/2019 AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49991
CRL.RP No. 376 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 20.02.2024 passed by II
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in
Crl.A.no.137/2023 confirming judgment dated 19.06.2023
passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Chikkamagaluru, in C.C.no.744/2019, this revision petition is
filed.
2. Sri M Yashwanth, learned counsel appearing for
Sri Girish B Baladare, advocate for petitioner (accused)
submitted, petition was by accused against concurrent findings
of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act' for short).
3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) filed
private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that accused
borrowed Rs.3 Lakhs on 10.04.2017 with promise to repay
same as soon as possible and on demand, issued cheque
NC: 2025:KHC:49991
HC-KAR
bearing no.308253 dated 13.10.2017 drawn on Vijaya Bank,
Chikkamagaluru Branch, which when presented for collection,
returned dishonored with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on
16.10.2017. Thereafter, accused failed to repay amount or
reply even when demand notice dated 07.11.2017 was served
on accused on 09.11.2017, thereby committing offence
punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied
charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined
himself and another as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits
P1 to P11. And, on appraisal of incriminating material against
him, accused denied same and his statement under Section
313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused deposed as
DW.1 and got marked Exhibit D1. Though accused denied
relationship of creditor and debtor between him and
complainant and as well as contended that cheque in question
was given as security to Margadarshi Chit Fund,
Chikkamagaluru, but misused by complainant, substantiated by
production of intimation as Ex.D1, without proper appreciation,
trial Court passed impugned judgment convicting him. It was
submitted, even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed
NC: 2025:KHC:49991
HC-KAR
without proper re-appreciation, leading to this revision petition.
Therefore, impugned judgments of conviction were contrary to
material on record and liable to set aside as perverse. On
above grounds, sought for allowing revision petition.
5. On other hand, Sri N Krishna Murthy, learned
counsel for complainant opposed revision petition. It was
submitted, both Courts concurrently appreciated material on
record and arrived at well reasoned conclusions, leaving no
scope for interference. On said ground, sought dismissal.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgments and record.
7. This revision petition is by accused challenging
concurrent judgments of conviction for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge against impugned
judgments is on ground of perversity of findings.
8. Insofar as denial of legally enforceable debt
disputing financial capacity of complainant, very contention that
cheque was issued as security would amount to admission of
accused's signature on it. Ex.P1 - cheque bears name of
NC: 2025:KHC:49991
HC-KAR
complainant. There is no allegation that hand writing on cheque
is not that of accused or that it has been filled up without his
consent. Thus, benefit of presumption would be available to
complainant that issuance of Ex.P1 - cheque was for legally
enforceable debt. Indeed, said presumption is not absolute but
rebuttable by setting up probable defence, fact that accused
failed to examine any Officer of Margadarshi Chit Funds to
substantiate that cheque was issued as security would call for
rejection of said contention.
9. Insofar as dispute about financial capacity of
complainant to lend money, a bare perusal of intimation to
Margadarshi Chit Funds to complainant would indicate that
complainant was member of Rs.50 Lakhs chit with monthly
subscription of Rs.1 Lakh, while and amount mentioned in
cheque was only Rs.3 Lakhs. Same would sufficiently
substantiate financial capacity of complainant. As observed by
trial Court, accused did not reply to demand notice.
10. Besides above, trial Court also noted that
complainant had produced IT Returns, which would sufficiently
establish financial capacity. Thus, it is seen that findings of trial
NC: 2025:KHC:49991
HC-KAR
Court are based on appreciation of material on record and by
assigning due reasons. It is also seen that even Appellate
Court, after re-appreciation, arrived on similar conclusion. No
case of perversity is made out.
Revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
