Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar vs Dasegowda B on 6 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
CRL.RP No. 1166 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1166 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O APPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O HUYIGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMANAHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHWATH C.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DASEGOWDA B.,
S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O GUNGRALCHATHRA,
GRAMA, ELAWALA HOBLI,
Digitally signed
MYSORE TALUK,
by ANUSHA V
MYSORE - 570 016.
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI Y.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
14.07.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSION JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRL.A.NO.45/2023 AND
ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED
BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE
IN C.C.NO.3746/2018.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
CRL.RP No. 1166 of 2023
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 14.07.2023 passed by IV
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Crl.A.no.45/2023
confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.01.2023 passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore,
in C.C.no.3746/20218, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Ashwath C.M., learned counsel appearing for Sri
Mohan B.K., advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that
revision petition was by accused against concurrent 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 under Section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that complainant
and accused were known to each other, when accused had
approached complainant for loan of Rs.3,50,000/-, complainant
had lent same in July, 2017 on assurance of returning it within
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
HC-KAR
one year. Thereafter, when accused failed to repay and
complainant demanded return, accused had issued cheque
bearing no.502717 dated 06.08.2018 for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn
on State Bank of Mysore, Hunsur Branch, Hunsur, which when
presented for collection on 06.08.2018 returned with
endorsement on 08.08.2018 as "funds insufficient" and even
when complainant had got issued demand notice dated
29.08.2018, which was duly served, accused had failed to
either repay amount or reply to notice and thereby committed
offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
4. On appearance and accused seeking trial,
complainant examined himself as PW.1 and one Umesh as
PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On appraisal of
incriminating material, which were denied, statement of
accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter,
accused examined himself as DW.1, but, did not got marked
any documents.
5. It was submitted, accused had set-up substantial
defence, firstly, contending that cheque was issued as security
for an earlier loan transaction for Rs.25,000/- between
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
HC-KAR
complainant and accused and which was cleared, but by
misusing said cheque, present complaint was filed. It was
secondly submitted, accused had clearly denied and disputed
financial capacity of complainant to pay amount. During cross-
examination, it was admitted by PW.1 that his monthly income
from grocery shop was Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and there was
no other material to substantiate complainant's financial
capacity to lend sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. It was further
submitted, complainant's claim that it was cash transaction
would also lead to doubt.
6. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in APS
Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion
Linkers and Ors., reported in (2020) 12 SCC 724, held in
case complainant claims transaction with accused was in cash
and accused denied or disputed complainant's financial capacity
to pay such amount, burden would shift back on complainant to
establish his financial capacity with positive evidence.
7. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, reported in (2022) 6
SCC 735, had held presumption under Section 139 of NI Act
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
HC-KAR
was rebuttable and standard of proof required for setting up
probable defence could not be unduly high.
8. Referring to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham and Anr.,
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236, it was submitted failure to
remember particulars such as date and place of lending were
held to be fatal. On above grounds submitted that findings of
Trial Court as well as Appellate Court suffered from perversity
and sought for allowing revision.
9. On other hand, Sri Y.V. Prakash, learned counsel
appearing for Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, advocate for
complainant opposed petition. It was submitted, both Courts
had concurrently convicted accused for offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act. Said findings were after detailed
examination of entire material and by assigning reasons and
scope for interference in revision petition would be minimal. It
was submitted, though contention that cheque was issued as
security was taken, there was no material to substantiate
earlier borrowal or its repayment and about issuance of cheque
as security for said purpose.
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
HC-KAR
10. It was further submitted, though contention
disputing financial capacity of complainant was urged, during
cross-examination of PW.1, accused elicited particulars of
payment and there was no suggestion that said particulars
were false. Thus, there was no dispute about financial capacity
before trial Court. It was further submitted, apart from
examining himself, complainant had also examined one Umesh
as PW.2, in whose presence transaction had taken place and
PW.2 had clearly supported complainant's case. Thus, revision
petition was without merit.
11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and records.
12. This revision petition is by accused against
concurrent judgments convicting accused for offence
punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283 and Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) 9
SCC 460, have held scope for interference against concurrent
findings under Section 397 of CrPC, would be limited to
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
HC-KAR
examining whether impugned judgments suffered from
perversity or infraction of statutory provisions.
13. In instant case, there is no dispute about infraction
of provisions of law such as timeline provided in Section 138 of
NI Act. Main grounds urged in revision petition are perversity of
findings. Insofar as first contention that cheque was issued as
security for earlier loan, it is seen, such contention is taken in
deposition of accused as DW.1. Even as per same, loan
borrowed by accused was stated to be in year 2015, there is no
material to indicate it was repaid. Apart from fact that there
was no material placed to establish said loan was cleared and
cheque issued as security for said loan was misused, there is
no assertion or explanation by accused for not having issued
any intimation to his banker to stop payment on cheque in
question.
14. Moreover, accused failed to reply to demand notice
got issued by complainant. It is observed by Courts time and
again that bare contention that cheque was issued as security
would not be sufficient to upset statutory presumption under NI
Act. Further very contention of accused that cheque was issued
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
HC-KAR
as security would admit his signature on Ex.P1-cheque.
Therefore, complainant would be entitled for presumption that
cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable
debt.
15. Insofar as dispute about financial capacity, in cross-
examination of PW.1, indeed accused has elicited admission
that complainant was having an income of only about
Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from his provisional store.
However at same time, he has also elicited particulars of
payment such as denomination of currency by which payment
was made. Further, admission that complainant does not
remember exact date of payment is also elicited. But same
would not be fatal as there is no suggestion by accused that
such particulars were incorrect or false.
16. In course of cross-examination, it is also elicited
that apart from provisional store, complainant is also having
agricultural land and was doing agriculture and that he had
performed marriages of his four daughters. Even said
statement is not suggested to be false or incorrect. These
assertions would provide sufficient explanation that
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
HC-KAR
complainant had financial capacity to lend money. Moreover,
complainant stated that transactions occurred in presence of
one Umesh - PW.2, resident of village of accused. PW.2
supported complainant and despite cross-examination, nothing
material so as to counter complainant's case is elicited.
Therefore, contention about financial capacity would also
required to be rejected.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent iteration in
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar and Anr., reported in
2025 SCC Online SC 2069, has clarified that decision in APS
Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. case, cannot be for proposition that
in case of accused disputing financial capacity of complainant,
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would not arise.
Likewise said decision also referred to decision in Tedhi
Singh's case to conclude that failure of accused to issue reply
to demand notice would lead to an inference against accused.
Said factor would also go against accused in instant case.
18. Decision in John K. Abraham's case (supra),
would clearly distinguishable from instant case on facts. In said
decision, not only about lending, complainant did not remember
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44939
HC-KAR
who had filled particulars in cheque, when and where financial
transaction between complainant and accused had taken place.
Unlike in present case, where it is stated to have been taken in
presence of Umesh examined as PW.2 and complainant had
stated that money was lent in July, 2017. In view of above,
none of contentions urged by petitioner would be sufficient to
entertain revision petition. Hence, revision petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
