[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chandrashekhar B S vs Sri I.C. Shivanna on 2 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50230
CRL.RP No. 264 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 264 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR B S
S/O SHANTHAMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/A BAISUR VILLAGE,
MALLIPATNA HOBLI,
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATA REDDY C M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI I.C. SHIVANNA
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT ITTAPATTANA VILLAGE,
Digitally signed MALLIPATNA HOBLI,
by ANUSHA V ARAKALAGUDU TALUK,
Location: High HASSAN DISTRICT - 573102.
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.111/2022, BY COURT OF
PRL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KODAGU AT MADIKERI ITS
ORDER DATED 27.11.2023 AND SET ASIDE ORDER OF CONVICTION
C.C.NO.1971/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
COURT AT SOMAVARPET BY ITS ORDER DATED 01.12.2022.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50230
CRL.RP No. 264 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 27.11.2023 passed by Prl.
District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, in
Crl.A.no.111/2022 confirming judgment dated 01.12.2022
passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Somavarpet, in
C.C.no.1971/2014, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri CM Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for
petitioner (accused) submitted, petition was by accused against
concurrent erroneous 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 was
known to him and for his household necessities, borrowed Rs.1
Lakh on 12.03.2013 assuring to repay same within one month
NC: 2025:KHC:50230
HC-KAR
and issued cheque no.10090 drawn on Sahakara Bank,
Shanivara Sante Branch, for Rs.1 Lakh dated 12.04.2013,
which when presented for collection, returned dishonored with
endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 06.05.2012. Even when
demand notice dated 25.05.2013 got issued by complainant
was served on accused on 30.05.2013, accused failed to repay
amount, thereby committed 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 P7. And, on appraisal of incriminating material against
him, accused denied same and his statement under Section
313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused examined
himself and another as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits
D1 to D4. It was submitted, though accused has set-up
substantial defence that for very same loan transaction of Rs.1
Lakh, complainant had obtained several signed cheques and
had earlier filed CC.no.262/2007 before JMFC, Arakalagudu,
which was settled by paying Rs.1,95,000/-. Instead of
returning remaining cheques, complainant got filed other
NC: 2025:KHC:50230
HC-KAR
complaints through different persons, three of which were
withdrawn. It was submitted, accused had produced order copy
in CC.no.2062/2007 as Ex.D1. Without appreciating said
defence, trial Court proceeded to hold that complainant was
entitled for presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, accused
failed to upset same and passed impugned judgment convicting
him.
5. It was submitted, even appeal filed thereagainst
was dismissed without proper re-appreciation, leading to this
revision petition. Thus, impugned judgments were contrary to
material on record and liable to set aside as perverse. On
above grounds, sought for allowing revision petition.
6. On other hand, Sri VR Prasanna, 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.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgments and record.
NC: 2025:KHC:50230
HC-KAR
8. This revision petition is by accused challenging
concurrent judgments of conviction for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge is mainly on ground
that impugned judgments are contrary to material on record
and as such, suffer from perversity.
9. While borrowing money from complainant is not
disputed, it was contended at that time, complainant had
collected several signed cheques as security and in
CC.no.262/2007 filed earlier, claim of complainant was settled
by accused paying Rs.1,95,000/- as indicated in Ex.D1-certified
copy of judgment/order sheet. Thereafter, three other
complaints got filed by complainant herein through other
persons against accused were dismissed as withdrawn. Thus,
Ex.D1 would be sufficient to upset presumption available in
favour of complainant. Therefore, for failure to lead any
evidence establishing lending of money other than money lent
and settled in CC.no.262/2007, present complaint would be
untenable. However, while passing impugned judgment, trial
Court has observed that nothing material to corroborate or
substantiate such defence by accused was elicited in cross-
examination of complainant/his witness.
NC: 2025:KHC:50230
HC-KAR
10. Moreover, as contended, if complainant had failed
to return cheques even after settlement of his dues in
CC.no.262/2007, nothing prevented accused herein from
issuing instructions to his banker to stop payment. Admittedly,
Exs.P3 and 4 - Endorsements indicate reason for dishonor was
'insufficient funds' and not 'stop payment'. Further, accused
also did not issue reply to demand notice, which would also
lead to inference against him. Merely on ground of earlier case
being settled would not by itself, establish or substantiate that
issuance of cheque in question was for repayment of very same
debt. Thus, impugned findings would not suffer from perversity.
11. It is also seen that trial Court as well as Appellate
Court have examined facts and circumstances and arrived at
reasoned conclusions and same are not shown to be suffering
from perversity. 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.: 49
