Karnataka High Court
Narasimha vs M Dhananjaya on 27 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49258
CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1439 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHA,
S/O H.RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/A MRS COLONY,
NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE,
R/O LAKYA VILLAGE AND POST,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI MANJUNATH N D., ADVOCATE (VC)]
AND:
M DHANANJAYA,
S/O L.MALLESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
Digitally signed
C/O SUNITHA, NEAR SHARADHAMMA
by ANUSHA V TEACHER HOSUE, II CROSS,
Location: High VIDYANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA. 577 201.
Court of
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI THYAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE (PH)]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER
OF CONVICTION DATED 23.06.2018, PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA IN
C.C.NO.3861/2015 AND 2.ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED BY
THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.56/2018, DATED 03.12.2018.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49258
CRL.RP No. 1439 of 2018
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 03.12.2018 passed by III
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in
Crl.A.no.56/2018 confirming judgment dated 23.06.2018
passed by III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Shivamogga, in
C.C.no.3861/2015, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Manjunatah ND, learned counsel for petitioner
(accused) submitted that 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 private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that towards
discharge of loan borrowed from complainant, accused had
issued cheque no.503676 dated 02.12.2013 for Rs.90,000/-
drawn on Syndicate Bank, Shivamogga, which when presented,
NC: 2025:KHC:49258
HC-KAR
returned dishonoured with endorsement "Funds Insufficient" on
07.12.2013 and accused failed to either reply or repay amount
even complainant got issued demand notice dated 22.12.2013
by RPAD, and thereby committed offence punishable under
Section 138 of NI Act.
4. It was submitted, on appearance accused pleaded
not guilty and matter was set for trial, wherein complainant
deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. Thereafter,
statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded
after appraising him of incriminating material, which he denied.
Thereafter accused deposed as DW1, but did not mark any
documents.
5. Thereafter, however, trial Court convicted accused
and directed him to pay fine amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. Even
appeal filed was dismissed without re-appreciation, leading to
this revision.
6. It was submitted impugned judgments called for
interference on ground of perversity. It was firstly submitted,
NC: 2025:KHC:49258
HC-KAR
for domestic purpose accused borrowed Rs.90,000/- from
complainant in September, 2013.
7. It was submitted, cheque was given as security to
when accused's brother - Bettegowda borrowed hand-loan from
complainant. Even though same was repaid, complainant had
misused said cheque for present proceedings, without any
relationship of debtor and creditor with accused.
8. It was alternatively submitted, complainant lacked
financial capacity to lend money. Moreover, when accused was
working in KEB and having regular income, there was no need
for borrowing money. It was further submitted, claim of
complainant that payment was made in cash which would be in
violation of provisions of Income Tax Act, would also fortify
contentions of accused. It was submitted, above factors would
be sufficient to upset statutory presumption. Despite same,
trial Court as well as Appellate Court passed impugned
judgments relying mainly on statutory presumption. Therefore,
impugned judgments suffered from perversity calling for
interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:49258
HC-KAR
9. On other hand, Sri Thyagaraja S, learned counsel
for complainant opposed petition by submitting that both
Courts on proper appreciation of material on record, arrived at
reasoned findings, leaving no scope for interference. On above
grounds, sought dismissal of revision petition.
10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and record.
11. This Revision petition is by accused against
concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity of findings
as follows.
12. Insofar as denial of relationship of debtor and
creditor and failure to produce any material other than cheque,
very contention of accused that cheque was issued as security
for hand-loan borrowed by his brother Bettegowda from
complainant would amount to admission of signature on Ex.P1 -
cheque and its issuance to complainant. Said admission would
attract presumption about issuance of cheque was in discharge
of legally enforceable debt as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
NC: 2025:KHC:49258
HC-KAR
Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4
SCC 197, though same would be rebuttable and it would be
open for respondent to upset same by setting up probable
defence, omission to examine said Bettegowda would be glaring
and fatal to such contention.
13. Further challenge of financial capacity of
complainant to lend money, requires to be rejected firstly on
ground that accused failed to set-up such a defence by issuing
reply to demand notice, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2069, failure to reply would attract drawing of
inference against accused. Secondly, it is contention of accused
that his brother had borrowed loan from complainant.
14. Even contention about accused having sufficient
income, would not by itself cast serious doubt about borrowing,
in absence of any other material to corroborate same.
15. Likewise, contention about payment by complainant
to accused in cash would be in violation of provisions of Income
Tax Act, would require rejection in view of observations in
NC: 2025:KHC:49258
HC-KAR
Sanjabij Tari's case (supra) that any such violation would not
be fatal for claims under NI Act.
16. Apart from above, it is seen that while passing
impugned judgments, both Courts on appreciation of material
on record, arrived at well-reasoned conclusions. Same are not
shown to be perverse.
Consequently, revision petition is without merit and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
