Karnataka High Court
B S Manjunatha Rai vs M N Vanajakshi on 14 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46661
CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 780 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
B S MANJUNATHA RAI,
S/O SHANTHAPPA RAI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O ANDAGOVE VILLAGE AND POST,
SUNTICOPPA,
SOMWARPET - 571 236.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M N VANAJAKSHI
W/O NANAIAH M M.,
W/O C. UTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O ANDAGOVE VILLAGE AND POST,
SUNTICOPPA,
SOMWARPET - 571 236.
Digitally signed
...RESPONDENT
by ANUSHA V
Location: High THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
Court of ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
Karnataka JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,
KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.84/2021 DATED
30.03.2023 AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MADIKERI IN
C.C.NO.597/2019, DATED 06.11.2021 AND ACQUIT THE
ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46661
CRL.RP No. 780 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by Prl.
Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in Crl.A.no.84/2001
confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
06.11.2021 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Madikeri, in
C.C.no.5997/2019, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri R Shashidhara, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted petition is against concurrent erroneous findings
convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for
short). It was submitted, respondent(complainant) had filed a
private complaint against accused herein alleging that accused
was known to complainant since several years and on
10.10.2018 accused had purchased 25 bags of coffee at rate of
Rs.3,000/- per bag by paying Rs.5,000/- in cash and towards
balance of Rs.70,000/- given a cheque no.631932 dated
20.10.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Sunticoppa Branch,
Somawarpet Taluk, which when presented for collection on
17.01.2019 returned dishonoured with an endorsement
'insufficient funds' and despite service of demand notice on
NC: 2025:KHC:46661
HC-KAR
13.02.2019, accused failed to repay amount and thereby
committed offence.
3. It was submitted on appearance, accused denied
charges and sought to be tried. Thereafter complainant
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On
appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as
false and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded. It was submitted, accused had taken various defence
and substantiated same in cross-examination of complainant,
firstly on ground that Ex.P.1-cheque was issued for purchase of
plot in PACL India Ltd., Mysore of which complainant was stated
to be an agent and secondly even when accused had denied
and disputed transactional relationship with complainant as
claimed, complainant had failed to produce any material to
show that she had sold coffee to accused. It was submitted, on
receipt of demand notice-Ex.P.3, accused had issued reply as
per Ex.P.6 specifically taking said defence. Despite same, since
no material was placed, adverse inference ought to have been
drawn and presumption under Section 139 of NI Act ought to
have been raised. On said ground, learned counsel submitted
NC: 2025:KHC:46661
HC-KAR
that impugned judgment of conviction by trial Court confirmed
by first appellate Court suffered from perversity and sought for
setting aside of same.
4. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and as well as copies of depositions and exhibits are
made available fo0r perusal of Court by learned counsel for
accused.
5. This revision petition is by accused against
concurrent finding convicting accused for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act. Main ground of challenge is
alleged findings suffered from perversity. It is firstly contended
that there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between
complainant and accused and there was no material produced
by complainant to substantiate same. In this regard reliance is
also placed on defence taken that in Ex.P.6-reply notice was
issued for some other transaction.
6. Indeed, it is complainant's version that Ex.P.1 was
given to her towards payment of balance amount for purchase
of 25 bags coffee on 10.10.2018 by accused. In Ex.P.6 accused
NC: 2025:KHC:46661
HC-KAR
has denied/disputed said transaction and claimed cheque was
issued to complainant for purchase of plot from PACL India
Ltd., Mysuru, in which complainant was an agent.
7. But, in cross-examination, apart from said
suggestion which is denied accused made contradictory
suggestion that cheque was issued for purchase of shares in
Agrigold Company. This would dilute thrust of defence. That
apart, admittedly cheque is issued in name of complainant
which would contradict version of accused. If cheque were to
be issued for site or purchase of shares, same would not be in
name of complainant. There is neither explanation nor any
suggestion made to complainant in cross-examination that
words other than signature on cheque were filled by
complainant himself.
8. Insofar as failure to produce any material to
establish sale of coffee, admission about issuance of Ex.P.1 to
complainant would attract statutory presumption under Section
139 of NI Act in favour of complainant. Though same is
rebutted, defence set up and efforts by accused are insufficient
to upset presumption. Perusal of impugned judgments would
NC: 2025:KHC:46661
HC-KAR
indicate that on appreciation of entire material, both Courts had
arrived at reasoned conclusion. Thus, no case of perversity or
finding being contrary to any provision is made out.
Revision is without merit and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*
