Karnataka High Court
Sri K Ponnasaru vs Sri C Ravi on 26 June, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
CRL.RP No. 1199 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1199 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI K PONNASARU
S/O R KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT QTRS. No.P-381/1
OLD M.H AREA GE(M) AF
COMPLEX, JALAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 013.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KRISHNA S B, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI C RAVI
S/O CHINNATHAMBI
RESIDING AT No.QTR.T-445/4
7TH CAMP, 410 AIR FORCE STATION
JALAHALLI EAST
BENGALURU - 560 013.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P M NATARAJ, ADVOCATE
SRI B NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 04.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.No.208/2016
AND THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 PASSED BY XII
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
IN C.C.No.21799/2014 AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
CRL.RP No. 1199 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the
judgment dated 04.09.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.208/2016
by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru where under the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 27.01.2016 passed in
C.C.No.21799/2014 by the XII ACMM, Bengaluru
convicting the petitioner-accused for the offence under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the respondent absent. Learned counsel for
the respondent was also absent on previous date.
3. The case of respondent - complainant is that
complainant and accused are well acquainted with each
other since both of them are serving in Air Force. The
accused approached the complainant during the first week
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
of January, 2014 for advancement of loan amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- and complainant has advanced loan of
Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused. The accused agreed to
repay the amount borrowed and issued post dated cheque
bearing No.379018 dated 23.06.2014 drawn on State
Bank of India, Jalahalli Branch, Bengaluru. The
complainant presented the said cheque for encashment
through his banker and the said cheque came to be
dishonoured with shara as "insufficient funds" under bank
memo dated 23.06.2014. The complainant informed the
said fact to the accused. The accused requested the
complainant to present the said cheque again. The
complainant again presented the said cheque on
06.07.2014 and 07.07.2014, but the said cheque again
was dishonoured with shara as "funds insufficient".
Thereafter the complainant had informed the said fact to
the accused. But the accused did not responded to the
same. The complainant got issued legal notice dated
15.07.2014 and the said notice has been served on
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
16.07.2014. The accused has issued evasive and
untenable reply to the said legal notice and has not repaid
the amount borrowed to the complainant. Therefore, the
complainant has initiated the proceedings against the
petitioner - accused for the offence under Section 138 of
the N.I.Act.
4. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P12. The statement of the accused
has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The
petitioner-accused examined himself as DW.1 and got
marked Exs.D1 to D4. The trial Court after hearing
arguments on both sides has convicted the petitioner for
the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and
sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 8,05,000/- and in default
to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
5. The said judgment of conviction has been
challenged by the accused before the Sessions Court in
Crl.A.No.208/2016 and the appeal came to be dismissed
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
on merits affirming the judgment of conviction passed by
the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that even though the signature on the cheque is admitted,
the petitioner-accused has taken up the defence in his
reply notice Ex.P12 that the cheque Ex.P1 has been given
as a security for earlier loan transaction in the year 2011
when he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. He
submits that complainant - PW.1 has admitted in his
cross-examination that the previous loan which he had
given to the accused was in the year 2011 and the
accused has repaid the same. He further submits that
cheques which are having subsequent serial numbers to
that of Ex.P1 have been encashed during the year 2011
and the same can be considered on perusal of Ex.D3, Bank
pass book of the accused and Ex.D4, counterfoils of the
cheques contained in the cheque book. He submits that
there is an entry in the said Ex.D4, cheque book that
cheque bearing No.379018 has been issued on 17.01.2011
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
to C.Ravi (respondent-complainant herein). The amount
of cheque is not mentioned in Ex.D4. The trial Court and
the appellate Court have failed to correctly appreciate the
entries made in Exs.D3 and D4 to hold that the defence of
the accused has been established. Considering the said
evidence the accused has established his defence and
rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the
N.I.Act. As the presumption is rebutted, the complainant
has to prove the transaction. The complainant has not
produced any other material to establish the transaction of
lending Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner - accused and
issuance of cheque for making payment of the said
amount borrowed. With this he prayed for allowing this
revision petition and acquit the petitioner-accused.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Court has perused the impugned judgments
and trial Court records.
8. It is the specific case of the respondent-
complainant that petitioner-accused borrowed a sum of
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
Rs.8,00,000/- during first week of January 2014 and
issued cheque bearing No.379018 dated 23.06.2014. In
reply to the legal notice which is at Ex.P12, the accused
has taken the defence at para - 3 and 4 which reads thus:
"3. My client further instructs me to reply
to you that, on 17th January 2011 had borrowed
a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) at the rate of 4% per month and my
client was paying the monthly interest
promptly. At the time of availing the said hand
loan my client had issued a unfilled/blank
signed cheque to your client as security your
client had insisted.
4. My client further instructs me to reply
your legal notice that during the month of
August 2011 he had cleared the entire amount
and asked your client to return the cheque in
question. At that time your client had assured
my client that he would return the same as he
had misplaced somewhere. My client had
persisted your client to hand bank the said
cheque. Your client being superior to him in,
had assured my client that since he had
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
misplaced the said he would return the same
without fail as soon as he finds it. Believing the
words and assurance of your client my client
had stopped asking for the cheque as he had
faith in your client."
9. The said defence has been put to PW.1 in his
cross-examination wherein at one stretch PW.1 has denied
the said suggestion. Thereafter, PW.1 has given answer to
the said suggestion as under:
"It is not correct to suggest that, I have
given Rs.50,000/- handloan only to the accused
on 30.08.2011 as per the pass book now shown
to me. Witness volunteers that, it was the
previous loan I have paid to the accused in the
year 2011 and he has repaid the same."
10. Considering the said voluntary statement made
by PW.1, it is clear that there was previous transaction
between the complainant and the accused and the accused
borrowing loan from the complainant in the year 2011. It
is the defence of the accused that when the accused
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
borrowed loan from the complainant in the month of
August, 2011, he has issued cheque Ex.P1 as a security
for the amount borrowed. Therefore, it is to be considered
whether the cheque Ex.P1 has been issued in the year
2011 as contended by the petitioner - accused.
11. Ex.D4 is the cheque book of the petitioner -
accused wherein there are entries regarding cheque
number, date and in whose favour they are issued. There
is an entry that cheque bearing No.379018 is issued on
17.01.2011 in favour of C.Ravi. On considering the serial
number of the said cheque, it is Ex.P1 - cheque and the
said C.Ravi is the respondent - complainant herein. The
amount of said cheque has not been mentioned in Ex.D4
which indicates that cheque issued in January 2011 in
favour of respondent - complainant is a blank signed
cheque. There is also an entry in Ex.D4, Cheque Book
that cheque No.379020 dated 17.06.2011 has been issued
in favour of St.Claret School for Rs.4,500/- and cheque
bearing No.379022 dated 15.10.2011 has been issued to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
St.Claret school for Rs.4,530/-. These two cheques
considering their serial number, are subsequent to the
serial number of Ex.P1 - Cheque. In Ex.D3 - pass book
there is an entry dated 22.06.2011 that cheque bearing
No.379020 for Rs.4,500/- has been encashed by Claret.
There is another entry in the said Ex.D3 - pass book
dated 19.10.2011 wherein the cheque bearing No.379022
for Rs.4,530/- has been encashed by Claret. The said two
entries in Ex.D3 - pass book indicate that two cheques
bearing subsequent serial number to that of Ex.P1 -
cheque have been issued in the year 2011 and they have
been encashed. This probabalises the defence of the
petitioner - accused that Ex.P1 - cheque has been issued
to the complainant during the year 2011 and as per Ex.D4
- pass book, the said date is 17.01.2011. Since the
amount is not mentioned in front of entry regarding
cheque number 379018 in Ex.D4, it indicates that blank
cheque has been issued in favour of complainant - C.Ravi
by petitioner - accused. As the complainant - PW.1 has
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
admitted that petitioner has borrowed money from him
during the year 2011 and considering the entries in Ex.D3
- pass book and Ex.D4 - cheque book, establishes the
defence of the petitioner - accused that Ex.P1 - cheque
has been issued as a security for the amount borrowed in
the year 2011. The petitioner - accused has established
his defence and rebutted the presumption drawn under
Section 139 of the N.I.Act. As the presumption has been
rebutted, it is for the respondent - complainant to
establish the transaction of borrowing Rs.8,00,000/- and
issuance of cheque-Ex.P1 for payment of said amount
borrowed in a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. The respondent -
complainant has not placed any document/evidence on
record to establish the said transaction of borrowing
Rs.8,00,000/- by the petitioner - accused during January,
2014. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ex.P1 - cheque
has been issued for discharge of said debt. Without
considering all these aspects, the trial Court and appellate
Court have erred in passing the impugned judgments.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
Therefore, the said judgments requires to be set-aside and
the petitioner-accused is required to be acquitted. In the
result, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2016
passed in C.C.No.21799/2014 by the XII ACMM,
Bengaluru convicting the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act and sentence passed thereon is set-
aside.
iii) The judgment dated 04.09.2017 passed in
Crl.A.No.208/2016 by the LX Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is also set-
aside.
iv) Petitioner - accused is acquitted for the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22471
HC-KAR
v) Petitioner - accused is entitled to refund of
amount deposited by him before the trial Court.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DKB
