Karnataka High Court
Sri P Girish vs D R Sathish on 25 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48829
CRL.RP No. 246 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. 246 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI P GIRISH,
S/O PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT OPP. KONAMARIYAMMA TEMPLE,
NEAR GOWDA SAMAJA,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHARAN KUMAR K V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
D R SATHISH,
S/O KULLE GOWDA @ RAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT DODDATHUR VILLAGE,
KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S
PARLATTAYA S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
Location: High PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET
Court of
Karnataka ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY
THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT
MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.10/2020 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KUSHALNAGAR IN C.C.NO.224/2016, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT AND SENTENCING THE
PETITIONER HEREIN TO PAY A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,50,000/-
(RUPEES FOUR LAKH FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) AND IN DEFAULT OF
THE PAYMENT OF THE FINE AMOUNT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48829
CRL.RP No. 246 of 2025
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 29.10.2022 passed by I
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, in
Crl.A.no.10/2020 confirming judgment dated 30.01.2020
passed by learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar, in
C.C.no.224/2026, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Charan Kumar KV, learned counsel for petitioner
(accused) submitted that this revision petition was against
concurrent erroneous 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 a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused had
borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant on 08.08.2015
agreeing to repay same within six months and had issued
cheque no.349724 dated 08.02.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn
NC: 2025:KHC:48829
HC-KAR
on State Bank of India, Kushalnagar Branch, which when
presented for payment, returned with endorsement as
'insufficient funds' and despite service of demand notice got
issued by complainant, accused failed to repay or reply and
thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI
Act.
4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied
charge and sought trial. Whereupon complainant deposed as
PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. On being informed
about incriminating material, accused denied same and his
statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Accused
did not choose to examine any witnesses on his behalf. It was
submitted, though accused had taken up various defences and
substantiated them in cross-examination of PW.1, trial Court
without justification or proper appreciation convicted accused.
Even when same was challenged in appeal, it was dismissed
without proper re-appreciation, leading to this revision.
5. It was submitted, there was no relationship of
creditor and debtor between accused and complainant and that
cheque in question was issued to one Manjunath, who appears
NC: 2025:KHC:48829
HC-KAR
to have handed it over to complainant and in-turn had misused
same, filed present proceedings.
6. It was submitted, accused had also disputed
financial capacity of complainant to have lent such amount to
accused, especially when complainant had not filed IT returns
or any acknowledgement of receipt of loan amount. It was
submitted, it would cast serious doubt about manner of
transaction between accused and complainant and probabilizing
defence. It was submitted, failure to consider above factors
rendered findings leading to conviction of accused as perverse
calling for interference.
7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused
impugned judgments. Respondent is served but, un-
represented.
8. This revision petition is by accused challenging
concurrent findings of conviction for offence punishable under
Section 138 of NI Act on ground that same suffers from
perversity.
NC: 2025:KHC:48829
HC-KAR
9. First contention is about complainant failing to
establish that Ex.P1 - cheque was issued towards repayment of
legally enforceable debt. Though, it is contended that
complainant failed to produce Income Tax Returns or
acknowledgment for having received amount lent, it is seen
that accused claimed to have issued signed cheque to
Manjunath, but, failed to establish same. Consequently, there is
admission about due execution of Ex.P1 - cheque. Accused
failed to examine said Manjunath.
10. Apart from above, there is also denial of financial
capacity of complainant. But, fact that accused failed to reply to
demand notice got issued by complainant would justify drawing
of adverse inference, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2069.
11. It is seen that while passing impugned judgment,
trial Court availed statutory presumption in favour of
complainant. Though said presumption was rebuttable, it would
not suffice for accused to merely make suggestions without
NC: 2025:KHC:48829
HC-KAR
corroborating same with some material. as would render such
defence reasonably probable.
12. It is also seen that both trial Court as well as first
appellate Court have on independent assessment of entire
material on record, arrived at well reasoned conclusions, which
are not established to be suffering from perversity.
No, grounds to interfere. Revision Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV/GRD
