[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
C Nagaraju vs Y M Somasheker on 3 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50517
CRL.RP No. 328 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 328 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
C NAGARAJU
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.787,
SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA SWAMY
PRASANNA AMMA NILAYA,
1ST FLOOR, HORA GHANTAPPA BEEDI,
NEAR 401 BUS STOP,
BBMP YELAHANKA OLD TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI RAMESHA H E., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
Y M SOMASHEKER
S/O LATE MUDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT HORA GHANTAPPA BEEDI,
Digitally signed BBMP 1ST CROSS, NEAR 401 BUS STOP,
by ANUSHA V Y C CHIDANANDA BUILDING,
Location: High YELAHANKA OLD TOWN,
Court of BENGALURU - 560 064.
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2023
PASSED BY THE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRLA.NO.43/2023 AND JUDGMENT
DATED 15.12.2022 PASSED BY THE XII ACMM, BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.971/2020. 2) ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION WITH
COSTS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50517
CRL.RP No. 328 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 04.12.2023 passed by LXVII
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in
Crl.A.no.43/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 15.12.2022 passed by XII ACMM, Bengaluru,
in C.C.no.971/2020, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Ramesha HE, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted petition is against concurrent erroneous findings
convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for
short). It was submitted, respondent(complainant) had filed a
private complaint against accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
alleging that accused was known to complainant and in month
of February 2019, obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to improve
his tailoring business with assurance to repay same within 7
months. On demand after expiry of said period, accused had
issued cheque no.239989 dated 06.09.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-
drawn on Corporation Bank, Yelahanka Branch, Bengaluru,
NC: 2025:KHC:50517
HC-KAR
which when presented for collection on 18.10.2019 returned
dishonored with endorsement dated 19.10.2019 as 'Account
closed' and despite service of demand notice on 12.11.2019,
accused failed to repay amount within time and thereby
committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
3. It was submitted on appearance, accused denied
charges and sought trial. Thereafter complainant examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On appraisal of
incriminating material, accused denied same as false and his
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. It was
submitted, accused had setup substantial defence, denying and
disputing quantum of money lent, without proper appreciation
of elicitation in cross-examination, trial Court convicted
accused. Though, appeal was filed and dismissed without
proper re-appreciation leading to this revision. It was
submitted, during cross-examination accused had suggested
that after paying Rs.15,000/-, complainant had obtained
cheque, but same was denied. Likewise, it was suggested, by
lending Rs.25,000/-, complainant had added Rs.15,000/- as
interest and issued chit for Rs.75,000/- as received, which is
NC: 2025:KHC:50517
HC-KAR
also denied. Even suggestion that complainant had obtained
signed blank cheque and filled contents was also denied. These
suggestions would probablize contention of accused, which was
not justified and sought for allowing revision petition.
4. Respondent is served, but unrepresented.
5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and as well as trial Court records.
6. This revision petition is by accused against
concurrent finding convicting accused for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act by alleging findings suffer from
perversity. Insofar as amount of money lent being different
than mentioned in cheque, while passing impugned judgment,
trial Court observed that accused admitted his signature on
Ex.P.1 and its issuance to complainant. Same would attract
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act as per decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar
reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197.
7. Defence set up that amount lent was different than
amount mentioned in cheque and demand notice, is mainly
NC: 2025:KHC:50517
HC-KAR
dependent on suggestions made in cross-examination of PW1,
firstly, that amount lent was Rs.15,000/-, secondly, that
amount lent was Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- was added as
interest and discharge slip issued for Rs.75,000/- and thirdly,
that on lending Rs.25,000/-, a blank signed cheque was
obtained as security. Said suggestions are denied and would
not lend any credence to defence set up. It is also noted that
accused did not step into witness box or confront complainant
with discharge slip, as contended. It is settled legal principle
that mere suggestions which are denied do no upset statutory
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Therefore both
Courts were justified in extending presumption in favour of
complainant as well as in recording finding that accused had
failed to upset said presumption.
8. Consequently, order of conviction based on
presumption would be justified. No case of perversity or
infraction with statutory provision is made out. Revision petition
is without merit and stand dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:50517
HC-KAR
At this stage, it is submitted that accused had undergone
imprisonment for a period of six months. If it is so, trial Court
to take same into account while executing order.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
