Jawad Pasha vs H R Harikumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 11511 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Jawad Pasha vs H R Harikumar on 17 December, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:53952
                                                      CRL.RP No. 233 of 2024


                 HC-KAR



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                            BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 233 OF 2024
                BETWEEN:
                JAWAD PASHA,
                S/O ABDUL KHADAR,
                AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                OCCUPATION BUSINESS,
                R/AT NO 615/1, 5TH 'A' CROSS,
                KEMPEGOWDANAGAR,
                T. DASARAHALLI,
                BANGALORE - 560 057.
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                [BY SRI MAHESH S.N., ADVOCATE (PH)]

                AND:

                H R HARIKUMAR,
                S/O LATE B M RANGEGOWDA,
                AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                R/AT NO.12, 8TH MAIN,
                1ST CROSS,
Digitally signedAVANUR EXTENSION,
by              BANGALORE - 560 073.
GEETHAKUMARI                                                     ...RESPONDENT
PARLATTAYA S
Location: High   [BY SRI PARAMASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE (PH)]
Court of
Karnataka
                       THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                 1.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED IN
                 CRL.A.NO.1072/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LX ADDL.CITY
                 CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU. 2.TO SET ASIDE THE
                 JUDGMENT / ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.11.2021 PASSED IN
                 C.C.NO.7202/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XX A.C.M.M AT
                 BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITIONER BY ACQUITTING
                 THE PETITIONER.

                      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS
                DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:53952
                                              CRL.RP No. 233 of 2024


 HC-KAR



CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                              ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment dated 06.12.2023 passed by LX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61),

in Crl.A.no.1072/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 16.11.2021 passed by XX Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.7202/2019,

this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri SN Mahesh, learned counsel for petitioner

(accused) 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).

3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had

filed complaint stating that he was a Class-I Electrical

Contractor, while accused was a Civil Contractor and known to

complainant since 10 years had obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/-

from complainant in first week of October, 2018, on assurance

that same would be repaid within three months. Thereafter on

15.01.2019, paid Rs.5,000/- in cash and issued two post dated

NC: 2025:KHC:53952

HC-KAR

cheques bearing no.150081 dated 25.01.2019 for Rs.30,000/-

and no.150083 dated 28.01.2019 for Rs.65,000/- both drawn

on Axis Bank, Shanthinagar Branch, Bengaluru, which were

presented for collection. It was stated, while cheque no.150081

returned dishonoured with endorsement 'payment stopped by

drawer' on 25.01.2019, cheque no.150083 returned

dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on

01.02.2019 and even when demand notice got issued by

complainant on 18.02.2019 was served on 20.02.2019,

accused failed to repay amount within time and thereby

committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused had

denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant

examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P7.

On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as

false. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded.

Thereafter, accused stepped into witness-box as DW-1 and got

marked Exhibits-D1 to D3. It was submitted, accused had

taken up various defences including that there was no legally

enforceable debt between parties for issuance of cheque in

NC: 2025:KHC:53952

HC-KAR

question, that said cheques no.150078 to 150084 were signed

blank cheques with some mentioning date and amount also,

issued on 18.07.2016 to one Byranna as security for Chit

transaction. Said Byranna had filed C.C.no.25295/2018 against

accused by using cheque no.150084 and colluded with

complainant herein to file present case by misusing cheque. It

was contended accused was Class-I - Contractor while his wife

was a Doctor and they were having handsome income and

there was no need for borrowing.

5. It was submitted, in his deposition, PW.1 had stated

that he knew accused since 10 years but, admits he is unaware

of occupation of wife and son of accused, was unaware since

when accused was residing at address mentioned in cause title

of complaint. He also admitted he does not remember date

when accused sought for loan or for its purpose. He admitted

that except cheques in question, he did not have any other

documents or witnesses to establish transaction of lending

Rs.1,00,000/- to accused. It was submitted despite same, trial

Court convicted accused. Even appeal filed was dismissed

without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:53952

HC-KAR

It was submitted, impugned judgments suffer from perversity.

It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently failed to

appreciate facts in proper perspective and thereby impugned

judgments are perverse, calling for interference. On said

grounds sought for allowing revision petition.

6. On other hand, Sri Paramashivaiah, learned counsel

for complainant opposed revision petition on ground that it was

against concurrent findings. It was submitted, accused had

contended that cheque in question was part of several cheques

issued to Byranna towards Chit transaction and produced

Exs.D1 to D3 to establish same, but Ex.D2 - counter foil of

cheque book did not mention name of Byranna falsifying

contention. It was further submitted there was no dispute

about signature and handwriting on cheque. It was submitted,

both Courts had on appreciation of entire material on record

passed impugned judgments by arriving at well reasoned

conclusions leaving no scope for interference.

7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

judgments and copy of deposition and exhibits made available

for perusal by learned counsel.

NC: 2025:KHC:53952

HC-KAR

8. From above, it is seen, this revision petition is by

accused challenging concurrent judgments, convicting him for

offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of

perversity of findings. Insofar as first contention about failure

of complainant to establish issuance of Exs.P1 and P2 -

cheques were for discharge of legally enforceable debt, it is

seen one of defences taken was about issuance of signed

cheque to Byranna toward Chit transaction, which would

amount to admission of signature on cheque. Exs.P1 and P2

bear name of complainant thereby attracting presumption that

they were issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt.

Indeed, presumption is rebuttable by accused probabilizing

defence.

9. In instant case, accused setup two defences i.e.

denying legally enforceable debt and secondly, misuse of

cheques issued to Byranna. Indeed, there is admission elicited

that except cheque in question, complainant did not have any

other document or witness to substantiate transaction of

complainant lending Rs.1,00,000/- to accused, same would not

by itself be sufficient to upset presumption. In order to upset

NC: 2025:KHC:53952

HC-KAR

presumption, it would not suffice to setup possible defence but,

to establish its probability based on material on record.

Though, accused herein produced Exs.D1 to D3 namely

cheque-book, counter foil and copy of C.C.no.25295/2018 filed

by Byranna against accused herein, perusal of Ex.D2 would

indicate entry by accused about issuance of cheques no.150078

to 150084 to Byranna on 18.07.2016 by mentioning amount of

each cheque.

10. Ex.D3 mentions about accused herein issuing

cheque no.150084 dated 04.07.2018 by accused to Byranna for

Rs.2,50,000/- along with another cheque no.830944 dated

04.07.2018 also for Rs.2,50,000/-. Firstly, contents of Ex.D2

cannot be accepted on its face value as it is written by accused

himself and would be self-serving. Secondly, unlike in Ex.D3,

accused herein did not mention or explanation about other

cheque bearing no.830941 involved in said complaint. Apart

from above, despite cross-examination, nothing material is

elicited to probabilize contention about issuance of signed blank

cheques to Byranna or about contents of Exs.P1 and P2 -

cheques being filled up by complainant without consent of

accused.