[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nimishambha Enterprises vs Sri. Chikkamakegowda on 12 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52819
CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024
HC-KAR
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. 187 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
NIMISHAMBHA ENTERPRISES,
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SMT SHWETHAS M C.,
W/O SRI MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
GROUND FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND,
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAKARAJA N.C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. CHIKKAMAKEGOWDA,
S/O SRI LATE HUCCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O DOOR NO.1269,
SAHUKAR CHENNAIAH ROAD,
Digitally signed T K LAYOUT, JANATHANAGAR,
by ANUSHA V MYSURU - 570 001.
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of (BY SRI MAHESHCHANDRA B N., ADVOCATE)
Karnataka THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED
22.11.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.179/2023B. SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 21.04.2023
PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
MYSURU IN C.C.NO.10091/2021. C. ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
FROM THE CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52819
CRL.RP No. 187 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 22.11.2023 passed by IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in
Crl.A.no.179/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 21.04.2023 passed by VI Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.no.10091/2021, this revision
petition is filed.
2. Sri Sokoroja N.C., learned counsel appearing for
Sri Sumanth L Bharadwaj, advocate for petitioner (accused)
submitted that present proceedings were initiated by
respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that
accused was known to him since 10 years and borrowed a sum
of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant assuring to repay it within
five months and issued post dated cheque bearing no.787662
dated 29.06.2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank,
(later Bank of Baroda), Mandya Main Branch, Mandya, which
when presented for collection on 30.06.2021, returned
dishonored with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and even
when demand notice dated 29.07.2021 got issued by
NC: 2025:KHC:52819
HC-KAR
complainant was served on accused on 04.08.2021, she failed
to repay amount and on other hand had got issued untenable
reply on 16.08.2021 and thereby committed offence punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI
Act', for short).
3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied
charges and sought trial, whereupon, complainant examined
himself as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P12. On being
explained incriminating material, which she denied, her
statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter,
accused led defence evidence examining herself as DW-1 and
got marked Exhibits-D1 to D14.
4. It was submitted, accused had setup substantial
defence alleging that complainant was running Chit business
and cheques in question were collected as security for Chit
subscription amount. It was contended that accused was
financially sound and there was no need for borrowing money.
It was submitted, Exhibits-D1 to D13 - Fixed Deposit Receipts
('FDR', for short) would substantiate financial capacity and
would be sufficient to upset presumption. But, trial Court as
well as Appellate Court based only on presumption under
NC: 2025:KHC:52819
HC-KAR
Section 139 of NI Act, convicted accused which was perverse
On said ground sought for allowing revision petition.
5. On other hand, Sri B.N. Maheshchandra, learned
counsel for respondent (complainant) opposed revision petition.
It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently held accused
had committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act
and same could not be interfered with by re-appreciation of
evidence in revision petition. On said ground sought for
dismissal of revision petition.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgments.
7. This revision petition is by accused challenging
concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr., reported in
2012 (9) SCC 460, has held that jurisdiction of Revisional
Court against concurrent findings would normally be limited to
examining whether findings suffer from perversity or whether
there was any infraction with any statutory provisions.
NC: 2025:KHC:52819
HC-KAR
8. Perversity of findings is alleged firstly, insofar as
finding that issuance of Exhibit-P1 - cheque was towards legally
enforceable debt. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court
referred to specific admission by DW-1 in cross-examination
that Exhibit-P1 was from her account and has her signature.
Besides it is contended that Exhibit-P1 was issued as security
for Chit transaction amount. Above factors would attract
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, which is sought to be
rebutted by contending that there was no need for accused to
borrow money as Exhibits-D1 to D13 - FDRs would indicate
sufficient money was available with accused.
9. However, trial Court has noted admission by DW-1
that at time of bidding for tender works, there was need for
submitting Exhibits-D1 to D13 towards performance guarantee
and accused could not withdraw said amounts until conclusion
of tender period. It also observed that accused failed to
examine any other Chit subscriber to substantiate that
complainant would collect signed blank cheques as security.
Above material would indicate, though accused had setup
defence but failed to probablize same.
NC: 2025:KHC:52819
HC-KAR
10. It is also seen that while passing impugned
judgment, trial Court had referred to entire material available
on record and arrived at reasoned conclusions, which are not
established to be suffering from perversity. Even Appellate
Court re-appreciated entire material on record, concurred with
trial Court and dismissed appeal. Hence, no ground of
perversity with findings of trial Court and Appellate Court are
established. Revision petition is without merit and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
