Karnataka High Court
Krishnappa vs Rangaswamy on 12 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 786 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O. 2ND CROSS,
MALAVAGOPPA, WARD NO.14,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARTHIK S. TAYUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANGASWAMY
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/O. HONAVILE, BIDRE POST,
by DEVIKA M
SHIVAMOGGA-577 222.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. B.N.SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE IN C.C.NO.283/2018 DATED 26.12.2019 BY THE
HON'BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA AND JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2020 IN
CRL.A.NO.6/2020 BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
CRL.RP No. 786 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of case of the
complainant/respondent before the Trial Court that the
complainant and accused are well known to each other
from past several years and with this acquaintance the
accused approached the complainant in the month of
January-2013 for hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet out
his domestic needs and agreed to repay the same within 6
months with interest at the rate of 18% p.a by availing
financial assistance from the bank. Believing the words of
the accused the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to
the accused. The accused failed to repay the amount along
with interest accrued thereon within assured time of 6
months. Whenever the complainant approached the
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
accused and demanded to repay, the accused used to give
lame excuses. Ultimately the accuse issued Cheque for an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 28.06.2013 and when the
same was presented, returned with an endorsement
'Funds Insufficient' and hence the complainant issued the
legal notice to the accused and when the accused did not
gave any reply and failed to repay the amount. Hence,
complaint was filed and the Trial Court has taken the
cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138
of N.I Act and secured the accused. The statement under
Section 313 was recorded and the accused did not plead
guilty and claims for trail. In order to substantiate the case
of the complainant, he examination himself as PW1 and
got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the other hand, the
accused examined as DW1, but not produced any
documents on his behalf to prove his case.
3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record and also the
answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 and DW1 and also
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
the petitioner did not disputes the signature available on
Ex.P1 and hence invoked Section 118 and Section 139 of
N.I Act and drawn the presumption and also comes to the
conclusion that though he confused, raised two fold
defenses that he was not having financial capacity and
also second defense is that no financial transaction
between the complainant and the accused. Having perused
the material on record, Trial Court comes to the conclusion
that he pleads ignorance, suggestion putforth at any
transaction of more than Rs.20,000/- should be done only
through Cheque and also taken note of Ex.P1 where he is
admitted that he says it was returned by the accused
himself and all suggestion was putforth to the PW1 was
denied and also taken note of the endorsement as well as
Ex.P1 since Ex.P1 was not disputed and also when the
defense was taken that Cheque was given to the one
Varadaraju but categorically admits that he did not give
any complaint for misusing of the Cheque and hence not
accepted the defense theory and accepted the case of the
complainant since no reply was given when the notice was
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
served and only after thought defense was raised and
Cheque was given to one Varadaraju and with regard to
the Chit transaction is concerned, no documents are
produced and hence, not accepted the case of the
petitioner and hence convicted and sentenced to pay the
fine amount.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is
filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.6/2020.
The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record and
having taken note of the same, drawn the presumption
under Section 139 of N.I Act and even relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2019 SAR
(Criminal) 548 (Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of
Gujarat and another) referred the said judgment with
regard to the presumption is concerned and also taken
note of Section 118 and 139 of N.I Act and so also the
judgment reported in 2016 L.J.1267 (Venkatesh
Sadanand Pai V/s Mrs.Kanchan.A Kakodkar and
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
another) with regard to section 269SS of Income Tax Act
and so also the judgment of 2015 (5) Kar. L.J 472
(A.M.Govindegowda V/s B.V.Ravi) wherein also
discussion was also made with regard to whether the
accused has been able to establish his defense that he has
not taken any loan and detail discussion was made
referring certain judgment and in paragraph No.18
discussed the evidence of DW1 with regard to the defense
that he had no transaction with complainant and having
transaction with Varadaraju and re-appreciated that no
complaint was given with regard to the misusing of
Cheque as well as chit transaction is concerned, no
documents are placed before the Court and comes to the
conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error.
Being aggrieved by both the orders, present revision
petition is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention of the counsel before this
Court is with regard to the source of income of the
complainant for having made the payment of
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
Rs.2,00,000/- and also the specific contention that Cheque
was given in favour of one Varadaraju in terms of the chit
transaction and there was no any transaction between
complainant and the accused. This aspect has not been
considered by both the Courts. The counsel for the
respondent would contend that the said defense was taken
only after thought when the legal notice was issued and
the same was served and no reply was given. Apart from
that not disputes the very signature found in the Ex.P1
and defense theory has not been proved and no plausible
evidence is placed before the Court. Hence, both the
Courts have not committed any error and whether it
requires any interference.
6. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also
the counsel for respondent and also in keeping the
contention urged by the petitioner's counsel and also the
reply of the respondent, the point that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
1) Whether both the Courts have committed
an error in convicting and sentencing and
the First Appellate Court committed an
error in confirming the order and whether
it requires interference of this Court by
exercising the revisional jurisdiction?
2) What Order?
7. Having heard the respective counsels and also
on perusal of material, the complainant in support of his
case, he examined himself as PW1. No doubt the counsel
brought to notice of this Court answer given by the PW1
during the course of cross-examination with regard to
source of income is concerned and he replied that he had
sold the property and out of the said sale consideration, he
paid the money. The fact that the petitioner issued the
Cheque is not in dispute and only defense is taken that he
gave the Cheque to one Varadaraju in connection with chit
transaction and also when he subjected to cross-
examination, he categorically admits that with regard to
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
the Cheque transaction is concerned, no document is
available with him and not produced the same. Apart from
that with regard to misusing of the Cheque by the
complainant is concerned which was given to the
Varadaraju also no complaint was given against the
complainant or against the Varadaraju and when such
reasons are given and Trial Court also appreciated the
evidence of PW1 and also the DW1, the scope of revision
is very limited and in the case on hand, when the defense
was taken that the Cheque was given in favor of
Varadaraju, the revision petitioner has to probabilize his
case, unless he probabilize his case of chit transaction is
concerned and when nothing is placed before the Court
with regard to the Cheque transaction is concerned, no
complaint was given against either complainant as against
the Varadaraju and mere taking of defense is not enough.
The Court has to look only into the material when
perversity in finding of both the Courts while exercising
the revisional jurisdiction and hence, I do not find any
such perversity in the said finding. Both the Courts taken
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
note of ingredients of Section 118 as well as Section 139
of N.I Act. No doubt Section 139 is a rebuttable
presumption and having perused the material on record
also in the cross-examination of PW1, nothing is elicited
except the hand writing are in different inks other than the
signature and the same cannot be a ground to disbelieve
the case and no probable defense has been proved and
specific defense that he was not having money and also
transaction in connection with chit, nothing is placed on
record and when such reasons are given by the Trial Court
as well as First Appellate Court and unless the finding is
not legal and if any orders suffers from any infirmity, then
only Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction or
otherwise Court cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and exercise the
revisional jurisdiction.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6400
ORDER
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
