Karnataka High Court
G L Vinayakumar vs N Girish on 19 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 208 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
G L VINAYAKUMAR,
S/O L.LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.242, 3RD CROSS,
PANCHASHEELA NAGAR, MUDALAPALYA,
NAGARABHAVI ROAD,
VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 092.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI R.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
N. GIRISH,
S/O LATE NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NAGUNAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEHIND SMB BANK,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
Digitally signed by MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
GEETHAKUMARI ...RESPONDENT
PARLATTAYA S [BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE (VC)]
Location: High
Court of Karnataka THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA DATED 29.11.2022 IN
CRL.A.NO.5007/2018 AND ALSO C.C.NO.797/2010 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, SRIRANGAPATNA
DATED 01.02.2018 BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
CRL.RP No. 208 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 29.11.2022 passed by III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting as
Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.no.5007/2018 confirming judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2018 passed by
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in
C.C.no.797/2010, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri B.R. Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing
for Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat, advocate for petitioner
submitted that revision petition is by accused against
concurrent erroneous findings, convicting him 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 was well-known to him and had borrowed sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to clear hand loans on 20.12.2009 and towards
repayment had issued post dated cheque bearing no.593252
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
HC-KAR
dated 20.01.2010 drawn on Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Co-
Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore, in favour of complainant and
assured that said cheque would be honoured on presentation.
4. However when cheque was presented for collection,
it returned with endorsement on 20.04.2010 as 'funds
insufficient' and thereafter even when demand notice got
issued by complainant was served on 30.04.2010, accused got
issued false reply on 05.05.2010 and failed to repay amount,
thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI
Act.
5. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied
charge and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked Esx.P1 to P12. On being
informed about incriminating material, accused denied same
and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded.
Thereafter accused stepped into witness-box as DW.1 and got
marked Exs.D1 and D2.
6. It was submitted, though in cross-examination of
PW.1 as well as in his deposition, accused had raised
substantial defenses, firstly denying any transactional
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
HC-KAR
relationship with complainant i.e., denying existence of
relationship of creditor and debtor, complainant without
producing any material to substantiate transaction, Trial Court
had proceeded to pass order of conviction against accused.
7. It was further submitted, accused had taken a
specific contention that cheque in question was issued to third
party i.e., Ashwathanarayana, who had obtained decree against
accused and had filed Execution Petition no.48/2012 on file of
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Maddur, wherein accused
had taken very same contention that Decree Holder -
Ashwathanarayana had illegally taken three blank cheques and
two promissory notes from accused and had got filed cheque
dishonoured through different persons such as Girish and
Mahadevu, with whom accused did not have any financial
transactions.
8. Both Trial Court and Appellate Court ignored said
material and that accused had probablized his defense and
passed impugned orders of conviction which were contrary to
material on record and as such perverse. On said grounds
sought for allowing revision petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
HC-KAR
9. On other hand, Sri Shridhara K., learned counsel for
complainant appearing through Video Conferencing opposed
petition. It was submitted that revision petition was against
concurrent findings and scope for interference was limited.
Though contention was taken that cheque in question was
issued to Ashwathanarayana, no steps were taken to examine
said Ashwathanarayana nor to intimate bank to stop payment.
It was submitted, both Courts on appreciation of material on
record had arrived at reasoned conclusions and there was no
scope for interference.
10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and record.
11. This revision petition is by accused against
concurrent judgments, convicting him for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act on ground that findings of both
Courts suffer from perversity. Firstly, on ground that despite
accused denying transactional relationship with complainant,
without any justification presumption drawn was contrary to
law. Even fact that cheques were illegally taken by
Ashwathanarayana would upset presumption.
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
HC-KAR
12. While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court has
noted that complainant stated about accused being known to
him and on said basis, borrowing sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from
complainant for clearing his hand loans obtained from others. It
was complainant's case that towards repayment of said hand
loans, post-dated cheque was given. Accused has cross-
examined PW.1 rather extensively but, failed to elicit any
admission. Thus only effort is denying transactional relationship
and suggesting that cheque was issued to someone else, was
misused, which are denied.
13. Taking such defense would amount to admission of
signature on cheque giving rise to presumption in favour of
complainant that cheque was issued towards legally
enforceable debt. Though said presumption is rebuttable, mere
making suggestions which are denied, would not be sufficient
to upset same.
14. It is also seen, Trial Court has noted that there was
no effort on part of accused to examine Ashwathanarayana or
any other persons to substantiate that cheque was issued to
him. At same time, it is seen that Ex.P1- cheque is in name of
NC: 2025:KHC:47614
HC-KAR
complainant and on presentation returned with endorsement as
'insufficient funds'. In case, cheque was issued to third party
under duress or force, nothing prevented accused from issuing
intimation to Bank for stopping payment.
15. Though learned counsel for petitioner sought to rely
upon Ex.D2, perusal would reveal that it is accused's objections
against Execution Petition filed by Ashwathanarayana. Thus
Ex.D2, at best would be self-serving statement and cannot be
treated as acceptable evidence to probabilize defense. Said
factor would also go against accused. It is seen that while
passing impugned judgments, Trial Court as well as Appellate
Court have appreciated material on record and arrived at
reasoned conclusions. Hence, no case of perversity is
established. Revision petition is without merit and is thus
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
