Karnataka High Court
Sri Gyanchand Bhatia @ Gyanchand Banita vs Sri Avinas P B on 4 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 483 OF 2021
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 467 OF 2021
IN CRL.RP No. 483/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. GYANCHAND BHATIA
@ GYANCHAND BANITA
S/O BHATIA,
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.2,
TULSI APARTMENT
PARK ROAD, TULASI THOTA
BENGALURU - 560053
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SRI. AVINAS P.B.
S/O P.F. BABU
AGED ABUOT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.94, KANAKANAGARA
10TH CROSS 'E' BLOCK
R.T. NAGARA POST
BENGALURU - 560032
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.V.MOHAN ADEKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
17.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25137/2020
CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION ORDER OF JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE DATED 18.08.2020 PASSED BY THE XIV
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.55925/2019 AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.
IN CRL.RP NO. 467/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. GYANCHAND BHATIA
@ GYANCHAND BANITA
S/O BHATIA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.2,
TULSI APARTMENT
PARK ROAD, TULASI THOTA
BENGALURU - 560053
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. AVINAS P.B.,
S/O P.F. BABU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.94, KANAKANAGARA
10TH CROSS 'E' BLOCK
R.T. NAGARA POST
BENGALURU - 560032
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.V.MOHAN ADEKAR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
CRL.RP No. 483 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 467 of 2021
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
THE LEARNED LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT AND
SESSIONS JUDE, BANGALORE (CCH-73) IN
CRL.A.NO.25138/2020 DATED 17.02.2021 CONFIRMING
CONVICTION ORDER OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE LEANRED XIV ACMM, BANGLAORE IN
C.C.NO.53829/2019 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18.08.2020
AND ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER BY ALLOWING
THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. These two revision petitions are taken up
together for consideration, since complainant and the
accused are one and the same in both the matters and the
offence invoked against the revision petitioner is under
Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. These two revision petitions are filed against
conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in
C.C.Nos.55925/2019 and 53829/2019 dated 18.08.2020
and confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
in Crl.A.Nos.25137/2020 and 25138/2020 dated
17.02.2021.
4. The factual matrix of case of the complainant in
C.C.No.55925/2019 is that accused approached the
complainant and requested to lend loan of Rs.8,00,000/-
in the month of March, 2016 for his daughter's marriage
and other family commitments. The complainant
accordingly arranged the money from his friends and gave
loan amount and accused availed the loan amount in cash
promising to repay the same within 6 to 8 months. But,
when demand was made to repay, he kept on evading the
complainant for two years on one or the other pretext.
When the complainant consistently demanded the money,
in the month of February 2019, in discharge of debt and
liability, the accused issued four Cheques bearing
Nos.000013, 000014, 000015 and 000016 dated
10.05.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- each and the same are
dishonoured. So also in other case in C.C.No.53829/2019,
the accused issued two Cheques bearing Nos.000011,
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
000012 dated 02.03.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- each towards
repayment and the same are also dishonoured. Hence,
these two criminal revision petitions are filed i.e., one case
in respect of four Cheques for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each
i.e., Rs.4,00,000/- and another case in respect of two
Cheques for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each i.e.,
Rs.2,00,000/- and in total six Cheques were presented and
the same were dishonoured. Hence, legal notice was
issued and reply is given stating that amount was repaid
to the father of the complainant and subsequent to death
of father of the complainant, he has paid the remaining
amount to mother of the complainant and also the
complainant, but he did not repay the amount and
complaint was filed and cognizance was taken by the Trial
Court and secured the accused and he did not plead guilty
and hence, trial was commenced in both the cases in
C.C.No.55925/2019 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 are marked. In
Crl.A.No.25138/2021, C.C.No.53829/2019 got marked the
document Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. On the other hand the defense
examined one witness as DW1 and got marked the
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
document Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The Trial Court having
considered the material on record accepted the case of the
complainant and not accepted the defense of the accused.
In respect of two Cheques is concerned, sentenced to pay
an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and in respect of four
Cheques is concerned, sentenced to pay an amount of
Rs.4,60,000/-. Being aggrieved by the conviction and
sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.25138/2020 as
against C.C.No.53829/2019 and in respect of
C.C.No.55925/2019 filed Crl.A.No.25137/2020 and in both
the appeals, the First Appellate Court having re-assessed
the material available on record accepted the finding of
the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, these
two revision petitions are filed before this Court. The
counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed
an error. The alleged Cheques was not issued to any hand
loan and respondent has not produced any single
document for lending loan Rs.8,00,000/-. In spite of
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
discrepancies and contrary statements in the case, the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court not
appreciated the same. The counsel also during the course
of his argument, would vehemently contend that when the
complaint was given in the year 2018, question of
issuance of these eight Cheques in the year 2019 does not
arise. This fact has not been considered by the Trial Court
while appreciating the evidence as well as First Appellate
Court also committed an error while considering the
material on record. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that specific defense was taken that entire
amount has been repaid by making the payment in favour
of the father and also the mother as well as the
complainant and for having repaid the amount not
received any receipt. It the specific case of the revision
petitioner that amount was repaid and these are the
materials which have not been considered by the Trial
Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
5. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that issuance of
Cheque is concerned not disputed the same and signature
also admitted by the accused. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that no document is placed for having
repaid the amount either to the father or to the mother
and the complainant and defense remains as defense and
not produced any material to prove the contention of the
accused. Both the Courts have not committed any error in
accepting the case of complainant and it does not requires
any interference of this Court.
6. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also
the learned counsel for the respondent and also on
considering the material on record, the point that would
arise for consideration of this Court are:
1) Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court committed an error in accepting the case
of the complainant and not accepting the case
of the accused and whether it requires
interference of this Court?
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
2) What Order?
7. Having heard the respective counsels and also
on perusal of the material available on record, the specific
case of the complainant that the accused had approached
the complainant to meet the family necessities has availed
the loan of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is also the case of
complainant that in order to repay the amount he took
time, but he did not repay the amount on consistent
demand and he has issued the Cheque. The accused also
not disputes the very issuance of Cheque as well as the
Cheque contains the signature, but only contention that
amount was availed from the father and the same was
repaid in part to the father and when the father died,
repaid the amount in favour of the complainant as well as
his mother. In order to substantiate that he has repaid the
amount either to the father or to the mother or
complainant no document is placed before the Court.
However, relies upon the document of Ex.D1 and Ex.D2
that complaint was given to the Police and in the cross-
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
examination he says came to know about the lodging of
the complaint only in the month of January-2019. The
counsel for the revision petitioner also would contend that
once he came to know about lodging of complaint to the
Police, question of issuance of Cheque in the year 2019
does not arise, but he categorically admits that Cheques
are given to the father during his lifetime and the same is
not disputed. Once he admits the issuance of Cheque in
favour of the father when he demanded the Cheque as
security and when he advanced the loan. The very
contention of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted.
The only defense raised by the accused before the Trial
Court that the amount was repaid. I have already pointed
out that for having repaid the amount nothing is placed on
record, there is a force in the contention of the
complainant's counsel that the defense remains as defense
since no material is placed before the Court. Once he
admits that Cheques are issued as security and the fact
that he availed the loan is also not disputed, but only
contention that it was repaid and when such defense was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
taken that the same was repaid, no document is placed
and when such admission is there with regard to the
availing of loan and also repayment is concerned and only
contention of the counsel that out of 8 Cheques, only 6
Cheques are presented, but the material available before
the Court that in one case two Cheques are produced and
in another case four Cheques are produced, but only six
Cheques are before the Court in both the cases. When the
similar evidences are before the Court and similar defense
available before the Court and similar defense has taken
for having received the money and repaid the same in the
absence of any documentary proof for having repaid, the
contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner cannot
be accepted. However, the counsel during the course of
argument also would contend that an amount of
Rs.96,750/- was drawn by the complainant and the same
is self Cheque and having he had drawn the money of
Rs.96,750/- no document is placed that the complainant
withdrew the money of self Cheque of the accused except
placing the statement before this Court and statement also
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
does not disclose with regard to the amount was drawn by
the complainant and hence, this document also cannot be
accepted and this document also not placed before the
Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and when such
being material available before the Court, this Court can
exercise the revisional jurisdiction only any perversity in
finding of the Trial Court. I have already pointed out that
based on the evidence available on record, when the
defense was taken that amount was repaid and nothing is
placed on record. The very contention of revision
petitioner that both the Courts have committed an error
cannot be accepted and not found any perversity in finding
since the defense which had been taken by the revision
petitioner has not been placed by placing any cogent
evidence before the Court. In the absence of any cogent
evidence, question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction
does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to allow
the revision petition. Hence, I answer the point as
'Negative'.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9196
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Both the Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST,RHS
