Karnataka High Court
Sri D H Basavarajappa vs Sri Janardhana Gowda N on 18 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47251
CRL.RP No. 1414 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1414 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI D H BASAVARAJAPPA,
S/O B D HOTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A EVER SHINE,
NITHYADAR COMPOUND,
MALADY VILLAGE,
MADANTHYAR POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 217.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ISMAIL MUNEEB MUSBA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI JANARDHANA GOWDA N.,
S/O ELLYANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/A NOOJI HOUSE,
THOTATHADY VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 214.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI DEEPAK WAGLE, ADVOCATE FOR
GEETHAKUMARI SRI A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
PARLATTAYA S
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
Location: High ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
Court of ORDER 21.08.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.82/2018 PASSED BY THE I
Karnataka
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU
AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 IN C.C.NO.282/
2017 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY,
D.K., PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE A AND B RESPECTIVELY
AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED AND DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/ RESPONDENT HEREIN.
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:47251
CRL.RP No. 1414 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 21.08.2019 passed by I
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, in
Crl.A.no.82/2018 confirming judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 31.07.2018 passed by Principal Civil Judge
and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K., in C.C.no.282/20217, this
revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for for
petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition is 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 against accused under Section 200 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging
that accused had borrowed sum of Rs.8,40,000/- as hand loan
in December, 2016, agreeing to repay it within two months and
towards repayment had issued cheque bearing no.531053
dated 03.02.2017 drawn on State Bank of India, Belthangady
Branch, Belthangady, which when presented for collection
NC: 2025:KHC:47251
HC-KAR
returned with endorsement as 'funds insufficient' and despite
demand notice dated 01.03.2017 got issued by complainant
was served, accused failed to repay amount within 15 days and
thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI
Act.
4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused pleaded
not guilty and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant was
examined as PW.1 and Exhibits P1 to P5 were got marked.
Incriminating material was explained to accused, which he
denied, his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded.
Thereafter, accused stepped into witness-box as DW.1 and got
marked Exhibits D1 to D10.
5. It was submitted though substantial defence was
setup, Trial Court without proper appreciation proceeded to
pass order of conviction. Though appeal, Appellate Court
without proper re-appreciation dismissed appeal leading to this
revision petition.
6. It was firstly submitted that there was no
relationship of creditor and debtor between accused and
complainant. Absolutely no records of any transaction were
NC: 2025:KHC:47251
HC-KAR
produced by complainant. It was submitted, accused had
contented that cheque in question was issued to one Ramesh
when accused had borrowed loan as security for hand loan. It
was submitted, said loan was repaid but, Ramesh had not
returned cheque to accused and same was misused by
complainant to file present case.
7. It was further submitted said Ramesh had also filed
complaint against accused for offence punishable under Section
138 of NI Act. Above factors would probabilize defence of
accused and sufficient to upset presumption under Section 139
of NI Act. Failure of trial Court as well as Appellate Court to
appreciate said facts and grounds rendered them perverse and
sought for allowing revision petition.
8. On other hand, Sri Deepak Wagle, learned counsel
appearing for Sri A. Keshava Bhat, advocate for complainant
opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts had on
independent appreciation of material on record arrived at
reasoned conclusions and there would be no scope for
interference in revision.
NC: 2025:KHC:47251
HC-KAR
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and record.
10. This revision is by accused against concurrent
findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section
138 of NI Act on ground that impugned judgments suffer from
perversity, firstly, insofar as failure to establish legally
enforceable debt, secondly, cheque was issued as security for
hand loan borrowed from Ramesh - third person.
11. Insofar as first contention, complainant in pleading
as well as deposition stated that accused had borrowed sum of
Rs.8,40,000/- from complainant agreeing to return same within
two months and towards repayment issued cheque in question
which when presented returned dishonored and complainant
had failed to respond to demand notice.
12. In support of foundational facts, complainant
produced cheque as Ex.P1; Bank endorsement as Ex.P2;
demand notice along with postal acknowledgment as Exs.P3
and P4 and reply to demand notice as Ex.P5. Accused setup
defence and led rebuttal evidence producing copy of legal
notice dated 10.04.2017; reply notice dated 18.04.2017; copy
NC: 2025:KHC:47251
HC-KAR
of legal notice issued by Ramesh to accused; copy of legal
notice dated 07.06.2017; reply notice issued by accused to
Ramesh; copy of Crl.A.no.13/2018; copy of order sheet of
Crl.A.no.13/2018; certified copy of application by accused to
SBI; copy of order sheet of PCR.no.73/2017 and certified copy
of complaint as Exs.D1 to D10.
13. While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court
observed that in cross-examination of PW.1 nothing material is
elicited about issuance of cheque to Ramesh and its misuse by
complainant. It is seen that cheque in question returned
dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. If cheque
was issued to Ramesh as claimed towards security for hand
loan obtained from him and said loan was repaid, there would
be no impediment for accused to issue intimation to his banker
to stop payment, on said cheque, even if Ramesh had refused
to return cheque. It is also seen that accused contented, said
Ramesh had filed cheque dishonour case against accused.
Same would not fit well with defence setup.
14. On other hand, contention that cheque was issued
as security towards loan obtained from Ramesh would admit
NC: 2025:KHC:47251
HC-KAR
signature of accused on cheque and since complainant would
be holder of cheque, presumption under Sections 118 and 139
of NI Act would avail to complainant. Though said presumption
is rebuttable by probabilizing defence setup, it is seen that
nothing material is elicited to substantiate defence. Both Courts
have on re-appreciation of material on record arrived at
reasoned conclusions. Said conclusions are neither established
to be suffered from perversity or contrary to material or record
or without any basis or are established to be contrary to
provisions of statute. Thus, there would be no scope for
interference, revision petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
