Dismissed¶61

M/S Jaya Engineering Works v. Sri Nagaraj @ Nagarajan

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2025CRL.RP/1337/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. criminal revision; concurrent findings; perversity; presumption under N.I. Act; probable defence; interest-free loan; cash transaction; Income Tax Act violation; cheque dishonour 'Insufficient Funds'; demand notice; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460; Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069); High Court of Karnataka; Justice Ravi V Hosmani; revision dismissed; C.C.No.2495/2018; Crl.A.No.2114/2019; conviction upheld.

What did the court decide?

No grounds are made out for interference with the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act; there is no good ground to entertain the Revision Petition. ¶61

M/S Jaya Engineering Works Vs Sri Nagaraj @ Nagarajan — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revision Petition by accused against concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act warranted interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

No grounds are made out for interference with the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act; there is no good ground to entertain the Revision Petition.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

There being sufficient explanation in the complaint that complainant and accused were well known to each other, lending of money without interest and without obtaining any security would not give rise to any doubt.

¶56

Key takeaways

Violation of provisions of Income Tax Act about transactions being in cash would not constitute sufficient cause so as to upset the presumption under the N.I. Act (proposition of Sanjabij Tari expressly relied upon and adopted by this Court).ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition CRL.RP No. 1337/2023 under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C. by accused (M/s Jaya Engineering Works, prop. K Sundar, and K Sundar) against concurrent findings convicting them under S.138 N.I. Act: order of sentence and fine dated 09.09.2019 (IV Addl. & ACMM, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, SCCH-06, C.C.No.2495/2018) confirmed in judgment dated 03.03.2023 (LXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, CCH-76, Crl.A.No.2114/2019). Factual matrix: hand loan of Rs.13,00,000/- allegedly lent in March 2016 (Rs.8,00,000/- by complainant, Rs.5,00,000/- by his brother Nagarajan); repayment cheque No.192810 dated 14.01.2018 for Rs.8,00,000/- (SBM, Malleshwaram Branch) returned with endorsement 'Insufficient Funds' on 19.03.2018; demand notice served, unanswered. Accused's contentions that the loan was interest-free, in cash and without security were treated as minute doubts insufficient to upset the presumption under the N.I. Act: relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 (interference with concurrent findings under S.397 Cr.P.C. limited to findings contrary to statute or suffering perversity) and Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069) (minute doubts insufficient to upset presumption; Income Tax Act violation in cash dealings not sufficient cause), and noting the parties' acquaintance explained in the complaint, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the Revision Petition; pending I.A. also dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1337 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S JAYA ENGINEERING WORKS NO. 199 (SHED NO 3), 12TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058 PROP: SRI K SUNDAR.

¶10

K SUNDAR S/O LATE KANNAPPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO. 296, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. NEHRU P, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI NAGARAJ @ NAGARAJAN S/O LATE R.V. KANDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO 829, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. SUMA T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED 4TH ADDL. AND ACMM, SMALL CAUSES COURT, BENGALURU, S.C.C.H.-06 IN C.C.NO.2495/2018 DATED 09.09.2019 AND THE ORDER OF JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2023, PASSED BY LEARNED LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU CITY (CCH-76) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2114/2019.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging order of sentence and fine dated 09.09.2019 passed by IV Additional & ACMM, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, SCCH-06, in C.C.no.2495/2018 and confirmed in judgment dated 03.03.2023 passed by LXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-76) in Crl.A.no.2114/2019, this Revision Petition is filed.

¶26

Sri P.Nehru, learned counsel for petitioner-accused

¶27

submits Revision Petition is against concurrent findings of Trial

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Court convicting accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. ACT' ).

¶32

It was submitted on an allegation that complainant and accused were relatives and in March 2016 accused had sought hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for performance of marriage of his daughter and for his business assuring to return same within six months and complainant had lent only Rs.8,00,000/-, which he could arrange and remaining Rs.5,00,000/- was arranged by Nagarajan, his brother. It was submitted totally Rs.13,00,000/- was lent to accused.

¶33

On completion of period and on demand, accused had issued cheque bearing no.192810 dated 14.01.2018 for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on SBM, Malleshwaram Branch which when presented for payment had returned with postal endorsement 'Insufficient Funds' on 19.03.2018 and thereafter even when complainant had issued demand notice, which was served on accused, had failed to reply or make payment and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, a private complaint was filed. On appearance,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

accused had sought to be tried. Thereafter complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 8. Appraisal of incriminating material and their denial was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused had examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D-1 to D3.

¶38

It was submitted despite accused having established substantial defence, both Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court without proper consideration had proceeded to convict accused. It was submitted impugned judgment suffered from perversity and call for interference.

¶39

It was submitted, as per complainant she had lent money of Rs.8,00,000/- for two years without interest, which was unlike normal behaviour, casting doubt of transaction. It was submitted claim that transaction was in cash, which would be contrary to law and would also cast doubt on transaction. It was lastly submitted, as per complainant there was no other security for transaction. This would also cast doubt on transaction. It was submitted cumulative effect of these would upset presumption available to complainant under provisions of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

N.I. Act. Such being case, order of conviction would be contrary

¶44

to law and sought for allowing Revision.

¶45

Smt. Suma T. learned counsel appearing for

¶46

Sri B.R.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent -

¶47

complainant opposed Revision.

¶48

It was submitted both Trial Court and First Appellate Court, on consideration of entire material on record, had arrived at right conclusion and there was no scope for interference.

¶49

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused impugned judgments.

¶50

From above, it is seen that this Revision is by accused against concurrent findings convicting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶51

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held scope for interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against concurrent findings would be

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

limited to examine whether findings are contrary to a statute or suffer from perversity.

¶55

In instant case, accused is not espousing any grievance insofar as timeline under Section 138 of N.I. Act. His main grievance is against findings suffering from perversity. Insofar as contentions that lending was without interest and that it was without obtaining any security and lending was in cash, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069 has stated that every minute doubt that may be cast on those espoused would not be sufficient enough to upset presumption available under provisions of N.I. Act. The accused has to establish probable defence based on same material.

¶56

In instant case, there is sufficient explanation in complaint that complainant and accused were well known to each other. Therefore, lending of money without interest and without obtaining any security would not give rise to any doubt. It is further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in above mentioned decision, that violation of provisions of Income Tax

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:44341 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Act about transactions being in cash would also not constitute sufficient cause so as to upset presumption.

¶61

In view of above, no grounds are made out for interference. I do not find any good ground to entertain this Revision Petition. Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶62

In view of dismissal of Revision Petition, pending

¶63

I.A. is also dismissed accordingly.

¶64

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶65

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

M/S Jaya Engineering Works v. Sri Nagaraj @ Nagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jaya Engineering Works v. Sri Nagaraj @ Nagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokesh. S. R. Vs Smt. Sandhya v Pai

Dr Syed Ahmed Kafeel Vs Zamani Kafeel

Shri Ravi Alias Sandwash Ravi Vs Smt Mohanalakshmi

Arjun Chandra Vs Praveen Kumar K

Sri Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka by

Mohammed Roshan Khan Vs B M Venkatareddy