Karnataka High Court
Sri Rafeeq vs Sri Amarnath M H on 26 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49088
CRL.RP No. 133 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 133 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI RAFEEQ,
S/O M A MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O KIRUGUNDA VILLAGE AND POST,
GONIBEEDU POST,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 550.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI AMARNATH M H.,
S/O M G HANUMANTHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O BILAGULA,
Digitally signed HESGAL POST,
by ANUSHA V MUDIGERE TALUK,
Location: High CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577550.
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD M S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2023 IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.85/2023, IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND JUDGMENT
DATED 19.04.2023 IN C.C.NO.456 OF 2021, IN THE COURT OF THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDIGERE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49088
CRL.RP No. 133 of 2024
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 10.11.2023 passed by Pr.
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in
Crl.A.no.85/2023 confirming judgment dated 19.04.2023
passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudigere, in CC
no.456/2021, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri HU Vachan, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that this revision petition is against concurrent
findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI
Act' for short).
3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) has
filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) stating that accused was
known to him and on 01.12.2019, obtained financial assistance
for tune of Rs.2,50,000/- agreeing to repay same on
05.03.2020 and on demand, issued cheque bearing no.602095
NC: 2025:KHC:49088
HC-KAR
dated 05.03.2020, which when presented on 06.03.2020,
returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and thereafter,
failed to either repay amount or reply to demand notice dated
16.03.2020 got issued by complainant served on him on
24.03.2020, thereby committed offence punishable under
Section 138 of NI Act.
4. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought
trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and
got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. On accused being appraised of
incriminating material, which he denied false, his statement
under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Therefore, accused
examined himself as DW.1 but did not get marked any
documents. It was submitted, though accused raised
substantial defence and established same, without proper
appreciation, trial Court convicted him. It was submitted, even
appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re-
appreciation, leading to this revision petition.
5. It was firstly submitted, accused had disputed
relationship of creditor and debtor between accused and
complainant. It was contended, cheque in question was issued
to one Prasanna from whom accused had borrowed loan and
NC: 2025:KHC:49088
HC-KAR
thereafter, repaid same. But at that time, cheque was not
returned. Same was misused by complainant herein. It was
submitted, fact that as per complainant, cheque was issued on
05.03.2020 and very next day presented for payment would
itself probabilize his version. It was also submitted, private
complaint filed was beyond period stipulated under Section 138
of NI Act from date of service of notice by complainant and as
such, complaint was untenable. On above grounds, sought
interference.
6. On other hand, Sri MS Raghavendra Prasad, learned
counsel for respondent opposed revision petition. It was
submitted, both Courts concurrently arrived at well reasoned
findings convicting accused by referring to material on record.
Said findings did not suffer from perversity and sought for
dismissal of petition.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and record.
8. From above, it is seen that revision petition is by
accused challenging concurrent judgments convicting him for
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge is
NC: 2025:KHC:49088
HC-KAR
both on ground of infraction of statutory provisions as well as
perversity.
9. Insofar as first contention that complaint was filed
beyond period mentioned in Section 138 of NI Act, as noted by
trial Court, private complaint was filed on 06.07.2020 and as
per Ex.P5-Postal acknowledgment, Ex.P3-demand notice dated
16.03.2020 was served on him on 24.03.2020.. Though same
is beyond period of 30 days provided in Section 138(b) of NI
Act, it is seen that said period would fall during prevalence of
COVID-19 pandemic and as per order dated 10.01.2022 passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo-moto WP(Civil) no.3/2020 for
purpose of limitation, period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is
to be excluded. If so, filing of private complaint on 06.07.2020
would be within time. Therefore, contention about infraction
with statutory provision would not hold.
10. Insofar as perversity about cheque issued to one
Prasanna having been misused by complainant, admittedly,
Ex.P1-cheque stands in name of complainant. Very contention
that cheque was issued as security for loan taken by Prasanna
would admit accused's signature on it. As per decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar
NC: 2025:KHC:49088
HC-KAR
reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197, admission of signature and
cheque in name of complainant would be sufficient to attract
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Though accused has
cross-examined PW.1, there is no admission elicited about
writing on cheque other than signature was by complainant and
without consent. Consequently, defence that cheque was issued
to some other person and misused by complainant cannot be
stated to have been probabilized by mere suggestions in cross-
examinations, which are denied.
11. Even contention about failure of complainant to
produce any material other than cheque to substantiate lending
of money, in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Bir Singh's case (supra), admission of signature on cheque
as well as issuance would be sufficient. Thus, no ground is
made out to interfere.
Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
