[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Subramanyam K vs Smt. Asma Siddequa on 16 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
CRL.RP No. 1528 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1528 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUBRAMANYAM K.,
S/O LATE KANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT 1083, 4TH CROSS
ANANTH NAGAR,
ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE II,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
AND ALSO R/AT 1083,
4TH CROSS, ANANTHNAGAR,
ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE II
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI B.R.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
SMT. ASMA SIDDEQUA,
W/O A R IRFAN AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT 120/4, 2ND FLOOR,
OPPOSITE TO CITRINE HOTEL,
Digitally signed S C ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM,
by ANUSHA V BENGALURU - 560 020.
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of [BY SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE (PH)]
Karnataka
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON
SENTENCE PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.76/2023 DATED 30.09.2023 ON THE FILE
OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
AND ALSO IN C.C.NO.13759/2018 DATED 19.12.2022 PASSED BY THE XIX
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND ALSO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.
THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 26.11.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CAV ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed by LIX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-60),
in Crl.A.no.76/2023 and judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19.12.2022 passed by XIX Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.13759/2018, this
revision petition is filed.
2. Sri BR Viswanath, learned counsel for petitioner
(accused no.1) submitted that revision petition was against
concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting him for offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was submitted, impugned
proceedings were based on a private complaint filed by
respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that
accused no.1 was introduced to complainant by a common
friend Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad, and that accused no.1 and 2 had
approached her for hand loan to improve their fruits business
and on 16.03.2017, they had received Rs.1,00,000/- through
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
cheque no.925445 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rs.1,50,000/- on
17.03.2017 by cash and Rs.2,50,000/- each on 23.05.2017 by
cheques no.258301 and 258303 drawn on Syndicate Bank,
from complainant. Further, Rs.5,00,000/- received as lease
amount from his tenant in May, 2017, by complainant's
husband was also lent in first week of June, 2017, when
accused requested for further loan. It was stated that accused
had agreed to repay entire amount with interest at 1% within 6
to 8 months and also paid interest for three months. On default
in payment of interest and lapse of 8 months, when
complainant demanded repayment, accused no.1 had issued
cheque no.525647 dated 16.02.2018 for Rs.12,50,000/- drawn
on Indian Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru, which when
presented on 19.04.2018, returned unpaid with endorsement
'funds insufficient' on 21.04.2018 and thereafter even when
demand notice got issued by complainant on 27.04.2018 by
RPAD, same had returned with endorsement 'not claimed' and
accused failed to repay amount within time thereby committed
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied
charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined
herself and three others as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked
Exhibits-P1 to P14. On appraisal of incriminating material,
accused denied same as false and their statements under
Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused deposed
as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D5. It was
submitted, accused had taken up various defences including
denying existence of relationship of creditor and debtor, that
payment made were towards purchase of fruits for distribution,
that PW.2 acquainted with accused had stolen cheque from
shop of accused no.1, that complainant failed to establish her
financial capacity to lend money as claimed, that PW.1 despite
being educated claimed not to remember date of lending and
elicited admission from complainant - PW.1 that liability to pay
amount in question was on accused no.2, without proper
appreciation trial Court convicted accused. It was submitted, in
her deposition, PW.1 had stated that payment was made by her
to BKS Fruits and admitted accused no.2 was its owner and not
accused no.1. She also admitted to have made efforts for
recovery from accused no.2. Thus, when accused no.1 was
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
neither guarantor nor surety, arraignment of accused no.1 was
contrary to provisions of Sections 120 and 128 of Indian
Contract Act, 1872.
4. It was submitted, while passing impugned
judgment, trial Court observed there was admission by accused
no.2 that issuance of cheque was towards discharge of legally
enforceable debt. Relying upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, reported in 2023
(10) SCC 148, for proposition that Section 139 of NI Act,
provided for statutory presumption that unless contrary proved,
cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable
debt and in case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, reported in
2019 (4) SCC 197, had held mere admission of drawer's
signature without admitting execution of entire contents of
cheque was sufficient to draw presumption, it was submitted,
accused no.1 had led evidence and also elicited in cross-
examination of PW.1 that there was no material to directly
implicate accused no.1 of liability under cheque in question and
as such, upset presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Trial
Court had failed to appreciate same. Even appeal filed was
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this
revision petition. It was submitted, thus impugned judgments
suffered from perversity and sought for allowing revision
petition.
5. On other hand, Sri HC Shivaramu, learned counsel
for complainant opposed revision petition on ground that it was
against concurrent findings. It was submitted, while passing
impugned judgment, trial Court specifically observed that
accused no.1 and 2 are father and son and in Ex.D3 - reply,
accused no.1 had not denied knowing complainant. It also
observed contention of Rafeeq Ahmad having stolen cheque
from shop of accused was not stated by DW.2 (accused no.2)
and no complaint was filed in that regard nor intimation given
to Bank. Trial Court observed that as per PW.1, out of
Rs.12,50,000/- lent to accused, Rs.6,00,000/- was given to
accused no.2. It also noted admission by accused no.2 being
proprietor of BKS Fruits and Juice. However, it observed,
admission by DW.1 that cheque pertained to his bank account
and signature on it was his. There was further admission that
regardless of transaction, he had received amount. From
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
above, it had concluded that cheque in question was issued by
accused no.1 for repayment of his debt with complainant.
Based on above observations, it acquitted accused no.2 and
convicted accused no.1.
6. It was submitted, even appellate Court had
observed that Ex.P14 - Syndicate Bank Account Passbook of
complainant showed transfer of money from complainant to
accused no.2, which was admitted by DW.2. It also observed
admission by DW.1 about receipt of entire money, even where
transaction reflected it to be with his son. And further, DW-1
had categorically admitted his signature on Ex.P1 - cheque,
which belonged to him. In view of above and as there was
failure to substantiate that cheque was stolen by Rafeeq
Ahmad. On said observation, it confirmed trial Court judgment.
Thus, both Courts had on appreciation of entire material on
record passed impugned judgments based on reasoned
conclusions and prayed for dismissal.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and record.
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
8. This revision petition is by accused no.1 challenging
concurrent judgments, convicting him for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity of findings.
9. First contention for challenging conviction is denial
of legally enforceable debt for issuance of Ex.P1 - cheque.
Perusal of complaint reveals statement by complainant that
accused were introduced to her by Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad, who was
known to her. They had approached her for hand loan to
improve their fruit business at City Market, Bengaluru and to
invest money in BKS Fruits, Juice and Chats and that she had
lent total of Rs.12,50,000/- on various dates by cash and
cheque, on assurance to return money with interest. She also
stated that accused stopped paying interest after 3 months and
on her request for repayment, accused no.1 had issued cheque
in question on behalf of his son. There is no dispute about
presentation of cheque, its dishonor, service of demand notice
and filing of private complaint within time stipulated in NI Act.
Complainant deposed as PW.1 in terms of her complaint and
produced cheque as Ex.P1, endorsement as Ex.P2, demand
notice as Ex.P3, postal receipts and acknowledgment as Exs.P4
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
to P7, returned covers as Exs.P8 and P9, certified copy of
order-sheet, copy of private complaint, sworn statement of
complainant and list of documents in C.C.no.29624/2017 as
Exs.P10 to P13 and Syndicate Passbook as Ex.P14. She also
examined Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad, Irfan Ahmad and Mustaffa as PWs.
2 to 4.
10. PW.1 is cross-examined by suggesting that during
Ramzan of 2018, she along with 10-15 others purchased fruits
in large quantities for distribution to poor. An admission is
elicited that accused no.1 and PW.2 are having financial
transaction i.e. PW.2 having invested money in business of
accused no.1 had advised complainant to do likewise and that
an agreement was drawn in respect of said transaction. An
admission is also elicited that transaction took place between
complainant and accused without involving PW.2. Contradictory
suggestion that there was no transaction between complainant
and accused is denied. Likewise, even suggestion that amount
paid by complainant was towards purchase of fruits from BKS
Fruits is also denied. It is also suggested that complainant had
misused cheques forcibly taken by PW.4 from accused for
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
present proceedings is also denied. However, PW.1 admits that
Ex.P1 - cheque does not bear name and signature of accused
no.2 is admitted.
11. PW.1 is also cross-examined insofar as her financial
capacity. An admission is elicited that complainant is a teacher,
earning Rs.20,000/- per month, that income from Footwear
business was Rs.50,000/- per month. But suggestion that she
did not have financial capacity to lend Rs.12,50,000/- and had
filed false case are denied. She is also cross-examined about
manner of payment, wherein complainant disclosed particulars.
While cross-examining PW.1 on Ex.P14, suggestions are made
about said document containing particulars of amount transfer
by cheque to BKS Fruits. An admission is elicited that accused
no.2 was owner of BKS Fruits. Suggestions about proceedings
having been filed in collusion with PW.2 and 4 are denied.
12. In his deposition, Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad - PW.2 deposed
about introducing accused to complainant, accused seeking
financial assistance from complainant and about complainant
making payment of Rs.12,50,000/- as stated by complainant
and accused agreeing to return it with interest. Material
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
elicitation in his cross-examination are admission about PW.2
having lent Rs.21,45,000/- to accused, but, not showing same
in his Income Tax returns. Suggestion about PW.2 joining
complainant and others in buying fruits in bulk and distributing
them to poor during Ramzan are denied. Even suggestion that
he along with his brother went to shop premises of accused and
forcibly collected cheque and in collusion with complainant filed
present proceedings are denied.
13. PW.3 - husband of complainant deposed about
letting out house on lease for Rs.10,00,000/- and out of same,
Rs.5,00,000/- being paid by complainant to accused. His cross-
examination is suggesting ill-will between accused and PW.4,
who was a Police Constable and about accused having filed
complaint against him before his superior officers. Suggestion
about PW.3 joining PWs.1 and 2 in making bulk purchase of
fruits for distribution in Ramzan are denied.
14. PW.4 deposed that he was working as a Traffic
Head Constable, that PW.2 was his brother and admit that he
was a tenant under complainant. Suggestion about collusion
with complainant and filing of complaint is denied. Suggestion
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
about cheque in question was forcibly taken from accused is
denied.
15. On other hand, in his deposition, accused no.1 as
DW.1 stated that he had seen complainant for first time in
Court, that he had not approached complainant for money and
that no money was borrowed. He also deposed about PW.2
stealing cheques from shop of accused and getting present
proceedings filed. In cross-examination, specific admission is
elicited that he along with his son was living in joint family and
whether transaction was with himself or his son, he had
received money. He admits that in BKS Fruits and Chats, he
was managing fruits sale, while his son was managing juice and
chats part. An admission is elicited that no complaint was filed
on theft of cheques. He also admits that particulars of cheques
stolen were not mentioned in reply. An admission is also
elicited that Ex.P1 - cheque belonged to him and signature on
it was his. An admission is also elicited that in reply, he had not
denied knowing complainant. He admits pendency of another
proceeding against him as per Exs.P10 to P13 filed by PW.2.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
16. In his deposition, accused no.2 as DW.2 also denied
contents of complaint as false. But, stated that PW.2 and
complainant had purchased fruits in bulk for distribution to their
community people and that he was neither be drawer nor
signatory to Ex.P1 - cheque. In cross-examination, admission
is elicited that on 16.03.2017 and 23.05.2017, Rs.6,00,000/-
was credited to his account from complainant, but claims it to
be towards payment for purchase of fruits. Admission is elicited
that accused no.1 and 2 were facing other cheque bounce
cases.
17. Above material would indicate accused taking
contradictory defence insofar as Ex.P1 - cheque in question on
one hand, it is claimed to have been stolen by PW.2 from their
shop, but admitted that no complaint was filed and on other
hand, claims that Ex.P1 was part of several cheques forcibly
taken by PW.4. Simultaneously, it is sought to be contended
that payment admitted to be received from complainant was
towards purchase of fruits in bulk for distribution amongst poor
Muslims during Ramzan. However, it is seen that none of said
defences are substantiated or probabilized. At same time,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
specific contention is sought to be urged by accused no.1 that
his conviction was erroneous, since complainant admitted that
payment was made to BKS Fruits and Chats owned by accused
no.2, who was acquitted by Appellate Court.
18. PW.1 admits that admission is elicited about income
of complainant and her husband and contention that payments
were made towards purchase of fruits would dilute said
defence. Reliance on admission by PW.1 about accused no.2
being owner of BKS Fruits would be of little or no consequence,
as DW.1 admitted he had received entire money. Apart from
above, PW.1 admitted Ex.P1 belonged to him and had his
signature, which would provide sufficient basis for his
conviction.
19. Though, revision petition filed under Section 397 of
CrPC, would not require re-appreciation of evidence, in view of
above examination was to dispel vehement contention that
accused no.1 was convicted for debt of accused no.2, who was
acquitted in deference to tenet that a legal system would
tolerate 100 guilty persons being acquitted than an innocent
being convicted.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53562
HC-KAR
20. It is also seen, in light of above facts, decisions
relied upon would not be of any assistance to accused.
21. For aforesaid reason, it is concluded that impugned
judgments are based on consideration of entire material on
record and conclusions arrived are in accordance with law. No
ground for interference made out. Revision petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*/AV/GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78
