Karnataka High Court
Mr. Pradeep Kumar K.S vs Mr. S.A. Raghavendra on 12 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45983
CRL.RP No. 617 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 617 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. PRADEEP KUMAR K.S.,
S/O SRIRANGACHARYA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A NO.37, BANDE HOSUR,
KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 149.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHREEDHAR KOTRASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DESAI RAJENDRA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. S.A. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.123/1, 1ST MAIN,
BEHIND GOVT. SCHOOL,
KARIYANNANAPALYA,
Digitally signed LINGARAJPURA, BENGALURU - 560 084.
by ANUSHA V ...RESPONDENT
Location: High (BY SRI VIKAS M., ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 16.02.2023 OF LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYOHALL (CCH-73) BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.25189/2022 AND THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022
PASSED BY HONBLE XXXIV ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.55752/2019. B. ACQUIT THE
ACCUSED/PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT
1881.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45983
CRL.RP No. 617 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 16.02.2023 passed by LXXII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru
(CCH-73), in Crl.A.no.25189/2022 confirming judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2022 passed by
XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru (ACMM-34), in C.C.no.55752/2019, this revision
petition is filed.
2. Sri Shreedhar Kotrashetti, learned counsel
appearing for Sri Desai Rajendra Chandrashekar, advocate for
petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was
against concurrent findings convicting accused for offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, ('NI Act', for short).
3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had
filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that complainant
and accused were known to each other since several years and
NC: 2025:KHC:45983
HC-KAR
when accused approached him for hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/-
during first week of March, 2017, for his domestic and business
needs, assuring to return same, complainant lent said money
by transferring amount from his account as well as that of his
brother and his wife.
4. For repayment, accused had issued 3 post-dated
cheques bearing (i) no.000188 dated 15.07.2019 for
Rs.6,00,000/-; (ii) no.000105 dated 15.07.2019 for
Rs.2,00,000/-and (iii) no.000108 dated 20.07.2019 for
Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kammanahalli,
Bengaluru, which when presented for collection, returned
dishonoured with endorsement on 29.07.2019 as "payment
stopped by drawer" and thereafter failed to either comply with
demand nor issued reply when complainant got issued legal
notice, thereby committing offence punishable under Section
138 of NI Act.
5. On appearance and denial of charges, matter was
set for trial, in which, complainant examined himself as PW.1
and got marked Exhibits P1 to P10. It was submitted, on
appraisal of incriminating material which was denied, statement
NC: 2025:KHC:45983
HC-KAR
of accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded and
thereafter, Trial Court proceeded to convict accused and
directed him to pay fine amount of Rs.18,42,500/-.
6. It was submitted, said judgment was in violation of
principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity was not
granted to accused to cross-examine complainant. It was
submitted even when appeal was filed against said judgment,
Appellate Court without proper examination dismissed same.
Against concurrent erroneous decisions, present revision
petition is filed.
7. It was firstly submitted, matter was listed for cross-
examination of PW.1 on 28.05.2021. Thereafter, on three
occasions matter was adjourned since Presiding Officer was on
leave. On three subsequent dates, matter was adjourned since
complainant was not present. Thereafter, on four occasions
complainant and accused were present, matter was adjourned
due to absence of counsel for accused for cross-examination.
Thereafter, without further opportunity, cross-examination was
taken as 'nil' and Trial Court proceeded to pass impugned
NC: 2025:KHC:45983
HC-KAR
order. This would substantiate that adequate opportunity was
not granted to accused.
8. It was further submitted, there was no legally
enforceable debt and there was no relationship of creditor and
debtor between complainant and accused. It was submitted,
complainant had in fact got kidnapped accused and snatched
three signed cheques from him and misused same for filing
present complaint. In view of above, accused had issued
direction to his banker to stop payment on said cheques. It was
submitted, due to lack of opportunity, petitioner was unable to
produce said material. On above grounds sought for allowing
revision petition.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and certified copy of entire order sheet of Trial Court
made available by counsel for accused.
10. As noted above, this revision petition is against
concurrent findings convicting petitioner for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in
(2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for interference in revision
NC: 2025:KHC:45983
HC-KAR
would be normally confined to examining whether findings
suffer from perversity or contrary to provisions of law.
11. Contentions urged are about Trial Court passing
impugned judgment in violation of principles of natural justice.
Perusal of order-sheet of Trial Court would indicate that matter
was indeed set for cross-examination of PW.1 - Complainant on
28.05.2021. On said date, it was adjourned to 12.07.2021 and
thereafter to 06.08.2021 and 27.08.2021 due to Presiding
Officer being on leave. From 27.08.2021, PW.1 and counsel
was present, accused sought time to cross-examine. Thereafter
on 01.09.2021, 14.09.2021, 05.10.2021 PW.1 was present and
matter was adjourned at instance of accused. Subsequently on
02.11.2021 and 23.12.2021, matter was again adjourned due
to Presiding Officer being on leave. On 13.01.2022, 10.02.2022
and 28.02.2022 though PW.1 was present, there was no cross-
examination on PW.1. Therefore, Trial Court passed order
holding cross-examination of PW.1 as 'nil' and proceeded to
pass impugned order. Above narration would indicate that there
was sufficient opportunity to accused for cross-examination of
PW.1. Therefore, it cannot be stated that matter was disposed
of without adequate opportunity to petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:45983
HC-KAR
12. Learned counsel for petitioner has not clarified
whether opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence was sought at
time of recording statement under Section 313 of CrPC and
whether same was denied. Thus contention about lack of
opportunity would not sustain and requires to be rejected.
Insofar as contention that cheques in question were snatched
by complainant while accused was kidnapped, admittedly there
is no material to establish any such allegation and no complaint
is filed by accused. Even intimation is not given to bank.
13. Under above circumstances, when Trial Court and
Appellate Court have passed judgment on appreciation of
material on record and by assigning proper reasons, convicting
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, there would
be no scope for interference as findings are not established to
be perverse or contrary to provisions of statute. Revision
petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
