[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunatha Gowda vs Sri. Prashantha B J on 12 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52986
CRL.RP No. 418 of 2025
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. 418 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATHA GOWDA,
S/O THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/A MOSARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BARANDUR POST, SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 245.
...PETITIONER
[BY SMT. HEENA S A., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
SRI PRASHANTHA B J.,
S/O JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/A MOSARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BARANDUR POST, SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 245.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI R.P. MUNJOJI, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE (PH)]
by ANUSHA V
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
Location: High I. ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
Court of PASSED IN C.C.NO.2331/2017, PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL
Karnataka CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, BY ITS ORDER DATED
01.03.2023. II. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5099/2023, PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA
SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI, BY ITS ORDER DATED 20.01.2025 AND
BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52986
CRL.RP No. 418 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 20.01.2025 passed by IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at
Bhadravathi, allowing appeal in part by modifying order of
sentence dated 01.03.2023 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bhadravathi, in C.C.no.2331/2017, this revision petition
is filed.
2. Sri Vijayakumar S.C., learned counsel for
petitioner (accused) submitted that present revision arises out
of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was well
acquainted with complainant and expressing financial difficulty
borrowed Rs.4,50,000/- from complainant on 02.01.2016,
agreeing to repay same within two months. And further stated
at that time, accused had issued posted-dated cheque
no.017908 dated 01.03.2016 drawn on Union Bank of India,
Bhadravathi Branch, for Rs.4,50,000/- which when presented
after lapse of said time, returned dishonoured on 21.03.2016
as 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter when same was intimated to
accused, on his instructions, it was re-presented, but
NC: 2025:KHC:52986
HC-KAR
dishonored again as 'insufficient funds' on 26.05.2016.
Thereafter even when demand notice dated 09.06.2016 got
issued by complainant was served on accused on 10.06.2016,
accused did not reply and failed to repay, thereby committed
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
3. On appearance, accused denied charges and
sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW1 and got
marked Exs.P.1 to 8. On appraisal of incriminating material,
which was denied, accused did not choose to lead defence
evidence. It was submitted, accused had setup several
defences, namely, disputing financial capacity of complainant to
lend substantiated by admission in cross-examination of PW.1
that there was no prior transaction, would cast doubt about
lending of amount in question without documentation. It was
submitted, accused also contended that he had borrowed only
Rs.25,000/- from complainant for lorry tyers and issued cheque
in question as security for repayment. It was submitted both
Courts did not appreciate said factors in proper perspective and
same led to passing impugned judgments, which would be
NC: 2025:KHC:52986
HC-KAR
contrary to law and as such, perverse. On said ground called
for interference.
4. On other hand, Sri R.P. Munjoji, learned counsel
appearing for Sri M.R. Hiremathad, learned counsel for
respondent opposed revision.
5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments
and copies of deposition and exhibits are made available to this
Court by learned counsel for petitioner.
6. This revision is by accused challenging concurrent
finding of both Courts for offence punishable under Section 138
of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held that
scope for interference against concurrent findings in a revision
petition is normally confined to examining infraction of
statutory provisions or findings are perverse. In instant case,
grounds alleged are perversity insofar as finding about issuance
of cheque was to discharge legally enforceable debt and
finding about financial capacity of complainant to lend money
and failure to consider fact that cheque in question was issued
NC: 2025:KHC:52986
HC-KAR
as security for loan of Rs.25,000/- borrowed by accused. First
ground of challenge is by referring to admission in cross-
examination of PW1 that transaction in question was first
transaction between them. When complainant stated about
knowing accused very well, failure to secure loan transaction
with documents would not cast doubt.
7. Further, perusal of cross-examination of PW1 does not
reveal any suggestion made or admission elicited that
complainant had himself taken loan. Therefore, challenge
against financial capacity would also fall to ground. Apart from
fact that accused had failed to reply demand notice would also
draw adverse inference as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069.
8. Lastly, contention that cheque in question was issued
as security is noted only to be rejected, firstly on ground that
such defence was not taken up at earliest instance i.e., at time
of reply and secondly on ground that there is no admission
elicited to probablize same.
9. At this stage, it is also contended that trial Court has
failed to properly record statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2025:KHC:52986
HC-KAR
which would be in violation of principles of natural justice.
Insofar as want of recording statement of accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. it is seen that trial Court in para no.6 of
judgment as well as appellate Court in para no.24 respectively,
have recorded due compliance of requirement of law. Appellate
Court has specifically stated despite giving sufficient
opportunities accused did not appear. Therefore, even said
contention is not substantiated.
Thus, none of grounds urged would establish impugned
judgment as suffering from perversity. It is seen that both
Courts had passed impugned judgments by referring to entire
material on record and by assigning reasons. Thus, revision is
devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
