Karnataka High Court
Shri Mohammed Sameeulla vs Shri Sayed Zabeeulla on 25 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
CRL.RP No. 1585 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 1064 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1585 OF 2016
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1064 OF 2025
IN CRL.RP. NO.1585/2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMMED SAMEEULLA,
S/O MOHAMMED MUSTAFA SAHIB,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/A HOUSE NO.472/510/6/2,
2ND STAGE, WARD NO.22,
KOTTEPURA,
RAMANAGAR - 571 511.
...PETITIONER
[BY SMT.NAZIMA TASNEEM, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.S.MUKARRAM, ADVOCATE]
AND:
SRI SAYED ZABEEULLA,
S/O LATE SYED MASTHAN,
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PARLATTAYA S C/O EBRAHIM SAHEEB,
Location: High B.K.MILL, YARAB NAGAR,
Court of BISMILLA MANZIL ROAD,
Karnataka CHANNAPATNA - 571 501.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI DHARANISHA C.N., ADVOCATE]
THIS CRL.RP NO.1585/2016 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 14.09.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C.,
CHANNAPATNA IN C.C.NO.1163/2011 AND JUDGMENT DATED
22.11.2011 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., RAMANAGARA
IN CRL.A.NO.27/2015 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.P. AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
CRL.RP No. 1585 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 1064 of 2025
HC-KAR
CONSEQUENTLY RECORD FINING OF ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED.
IN CRL.RP. NO.1064/2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI SAYED ZABIULLA,
S/O LATE SYED MASTHAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PRESENT ADDRESS:
R/A #72, 2ND CROSS,
LAKSHMI LAYOUT,
ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
TRIAL COURT ADDRESS:
C/O EBRAHIM SAHEB,
B.K.MILL, YARAB NAGAR,
BISMILLA MANZIL ROAD,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 571 501.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI DHARANISHA C.N., ADVOCATE]
AND:
SRI MOHAMMED SAMEEULLA,
S/O MOHAMMED MUSTAFA SAHIB,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A HOUSE NO.472/510/6/2,
2ND STAGE, WARD NO.22,
KOTTEPURA,
RAMANAGAR - 571 511.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI M.S.MUKARRAM, ADVOCATE]
THIS CRL.RP NO.1064/2025 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1. ENHANCE THE SENTENCE
IMPOSED ON THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FROM 3 MONTHS TO 2
YEARS S.I UNDER SEC.138 OF THE N.I ACT. 2. ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AWARDED FROM RS.1,70,160/- TO RS.4,59,455/-
INCLUSIVE OF 12 PERCENT INTEREST P.A. FROM 25.04.2011 TO
23.06.2025 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.82 OF THE N.I. ACT R/W
SEC.3 OF THE INTEREST ACT 1978.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
CRL.RP No. 1585 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 1064 of 2025
HC-KAR
ABOVE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Above revision petitions arise out of proceedings in CC
no.1163/2011 on file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Channapatna, disposed of on 14.09.2015 confirmed by order
dated 22.11.2011 passed by III Addl. Sessions and District
Judge, Ramanagara in Crl.A.no.27/2015.
2. Crl.R.P.no.1585/2016 is filed by accused challenging
judgment of conviction and seeking for acquittal; while
Crl.R.P.no.1064/2015 is filed by complainant seeking for
enhancement of fine amount/sentence. For purposes of
convenience, parties will be referred to as per their ranks
before trial Court in context of revision petition by accused.
3. Smt.Nazima Tasneem, learned counsel for
petitioner (accused) submitted that on complaint filed by
respondent (complainant) alleging that complainant and
accused were known to each other and accused had borrowed
Rs.1,65,000/- on 10.03.2011 for his marriage expenses
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
agreeing to repay same with interest within one month and on
demand for repayment had issued two cheques no.839124 for
Rs.1,00,000/- and 839125 for Rs.70,160/- dated 25.04.2011
drawn on Syndicate Bank, which when presented for collection
returned with endorsement dated 25.07.2011 as 'funds
insufficient' and thereafter, accused failed to repay amount
even on service of demand notice got issued by complainant
and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short).
4. It was submitted on appearance, accused denied
charges and sought trial, whereupon, complainant examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8. On appraisal
of incriminating material which he denied, his statement under
Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for
short) was recorded. Thereafter accused examined himself as
DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2. It was submitted,
accused had set up defence, firstly disputing financial capacity
of complainant to lend money. It was secondly contended that
complaint was filed without being preceded with service of
notice on accused. Thirdly, on ground that cheque given as
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
security was misused and fourthly on ground that alleged
payment by complainant was by cash, which would be in
violation of provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. It was submitted, in his cross-examination PW.1
admitted that he had not produced any documents to show he
had money in hand on 10.03.2011 to lend to accused. PW.1
also admitted that he had not withdrawn any amount from
bank. Further, admitted, he did not have fixed avocation and
was also dealing in Cars. It was submitted, he had helped
accused in purchasing Maruti Alto Car earlier and cheque in
question was given, as accused intended to purchase Santro
Zing Car. Said cheque was misused for filing this case, as
counterblast, as brother of accused had filed suit for specific
performance against complainant. It was submitted, above
admissions were sufficient to upset presumptions in favour of
complainant and on said basis prayed to allow revision petition.
6. Insofar as revision petition filed by complainant, it
was submitted, same was filed after delay of 3066 days,
without any sufficient cause and was liable to be dismissed not
only on said ground, but also on ground of being untenable.
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
7. On other hand, Sri Dharanish, learned counsel for
complainant opposed revision petition. It was specifically
submitted, complainant was dealing in Used Cars and
acquainted with accused, who had earlier purchased Maruti Alto
Car. It was denied that cheque was issued for purchase of
Santro Zing Car. It was submitted, both Courts had on
appreciation of material on record arrived at well reasoned
conclusions and there was no scope for revision.
8. Insofar as revision petition filed by complainant
himself, it was submitted, while passing impugned judgment of
conviction, trial Court had imposed sentence of simple
imprisonment of three months with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in
default, to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months
and ordered accused to pay compensation of Rs.1,70,160/-
within three months, without any default sentence on failure to
pay compensation amount. It was submitted, money lent by
complainant to accused was in year 2011 and more than 14
years had lapsed and complainant was yet to receive any
amount towards repayment. It was submitted, failure to
enhance sentence/fine amount/compensation was likely to
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
result in miscarriage of justice. Insofar as delay in filing revision
petition, learned counsel seeks to rely on decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag and Anr. v. Mr. Katiji and Ors., reported in 1987
(2) SCC 107 and prayed for condoning delay and allowing his
revision petition.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and records.
10. From above, it is seen, both complainant and
accused have filed respective revision petitions, wherein
accused is challenging concurrent judgments of conviction
passed against him, while complainant has filed revision
seeking for enhancement of fine/compensation and sentence.
11. Perusal of impugned judgments of conviction and
orders of sentences reveal that both Courts have after
independent assessment of material on record arrived at
conclusions by assigning detailed reasons. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr.,
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for interference
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
against concurrent findings in a revision petition is normally
confined to infraction of statutory provisions or where findings
are established to be perverse.
12. In light of above ratio, contentions require to be
examined. Insofar as first contention challenging financial
capacity of complainant to lend money, based on admission
elicited that complainant had not produced any records to
establish lending of money to accused, it is seen in cross-
examination, it is also elicited that complainant was carrying on
several business in Bangalore including sale of Used vehicles
mainly from Oletty Cars. Suggestions that 15 days prior to
25.04.2011, accused had approached complainant for purchase
of Santro Xing Car and had given cheque for said purposes but,
on account of disagreement, purchase did not go through and
complainant had failed to return cheque despite demand, are
all denied. Even suggestion that cheque was issued as security
for said deal is also denied. However, admissions are elicited
that payment of Rs.1,65,000/- was by cash, complainant was
having bank account and held PAN Card. Suggestion that law
prohibits payment of more than Rs.25,000/- by cash is denied.
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
It is also seen, after eliciting admission that complainant did
not have any records to show that he had money to lend to
accused in March, 2011. An admission is elicited that
complainant had purchased immovable property in same
month. Said suggestion and admission would seriously dilute
defence setup. However, it is sought to be contended that due
to purchase of immovable property, complainant did not have
money to spare and lend to accused would require to be
rejected, as there is no material to substantiate same. Apart
from above, it is seen, complainant also produced
affidavit/examination-in-chief of accused in O.S.no.434/2011,
wherein he admitted about his financial constraint at time of his
marriage. This would also dilute accused's defence and
corroborate complainant's claim that accused had approached
him for financial assistance for his marriage. It is time and
again held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that probable defence
would not mean every possibility, which appears to be
reasonably probable on basis of material. In instant case,
accused failed to produce any material to probablize his
defence about lack of financial capacity of complainant to lend
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
money. Therefore, finding of trial Court cannot be viewed as
perverse.
13. Insofar as dispute about complaint being preceded
with demand notice, it is seen, complainant produced demand
notice and postal cover as Exs.P5 and P6. Postal cover bears
shara as 'not claimed, returned to sender'. Address mentioned
is same as in complaint, appeal and revision. Therefore, finding
of trial Court about deemed service of notice cannot be stated
to be without any basis or contrary to material on record.
14. Insofar as defence setup that cheque was given as
security for purchase of Car, it is seen, in cross-examination of
complainant, several other defences are setup, that false
complaint was filed in vengeance, as brother of accused had
filed suit for specific performance against complainant and that
accused had not agreed for marrying daughter of complainant's
sister. Suggestions made are denied. It is settled law that
suggestions made and denied would not constitute proof and
would not be sufficient to upset statutory presumptions.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
15. Last contention alleging cash transaction was in
violation of provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, would require
rejection, as Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v.
Kishore S. Borcar and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2069, held Section 269SS or Section 271D of Income-Tax
Act, 1961, do not render transactions in breach as illegal,
invalid or void and therefore, violation would not render
transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of NI Act.
Therefore, mere violation would not be sufficient to upset
presumption under NI Act. Thus, none of contentions of
accused his conviction would hold good.
16. Insofar as revision petition by complainant, it is
seen, there is a delay of 3066 days in filing revision petition.
Only reason/explanation offered is that legal process had
protracted and complainant had not received even a single
rupee in repayment. Application is opposed by filing objections.
17. Decision relied upon is an authority for proposition
that in case of sufficient cause, Courts ought to be liberal in
condonation of delay. In its recent reiteration of law in case of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1969, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which
the court must take into consideration while
considering whether the delay should be condoned
or not. From the tenor of the approach of the
respondents, it appears that they want to fix their
own period of limitation for instituting the
proceedings for which law has prescribed a period
of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost
his right to have the matter considered on merits
because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be
presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such
circumstances of the case, it cannot be heard to
plead that the substantial justice deserves to be
preferred as against the technical considerations.
While considering the plea for condonation of
delay, the court must not start with the merits of
the main matter. The court owes a duty to first
ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered
by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the
sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the
opposition of the other side is equally balanced
that the court may bring into aid the merits of the
matter for the purpose of condoning the delay."
18. Section 5 of Limitation Act does not require a
"good cause" but "sufficient cause", which is something more
than good cause. Expression "sufficient cause" is not defined,
but held to mean a cause which is beyond control of party
seeking for condonation and burden would be on party
seeking condonation of delay, to establish same. In instant
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
case, after passage of impugned judgment by trial Court, only
accused preferred appeal. After dismissal of his appeal, accused
filed Crl.R.P.no.1585/2016. Same was admitted on 06.01.2017
and notice was issued. Complainant entered appearance on
10.07.2017. Crl.R.P.no.1064/2025 is filed on 16.07.2025,
seeking to challenge judgments of trial Court as well as first
appellate Court, even though complainant cannot claim to be
aggrieved by dismissal of appeal by accused. Thus, revision is
actually against judgment passed by trial Court on 14.09.2015
and delay required to be explained would be in excess of 3066
days. When explanation offered does not dispute knowledge of
impugned judgments and complainant has participated, reason
assigned that delay was due to pendency or protraction of
proceedings cannot be held to be sufficient cause. Hence, IA
no.3/2025 does not deserve to be allowed.
19. Aforesaid reasons lead to following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.R.P.no.1585/2016 filed by accused is
dismissed, as being devoid of merit;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48764
HC-KAR
(ii) Crl.R.P.no.1064/2015 is dismissed, as a
consequence of dismissal of I.A.no.3/2025 for
condonation of delay of 3066 days in filing revision
by Complainant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV/GRD
