Mr S.Mohammed Asif Vs Mr Abdul Shukur Kota

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44670 CRL.RP No. 1555 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1555 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR S.MOHAMMED ASIF S/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 53 YEARS, R/A NO.2-56 , NEAR A.U.G HIGH SCHOOL, GANGOLLI POST AND VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK , UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 216.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE (P)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MR ABDUL SHUKUR KOTA S/O LATE HAMMAD SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A KOTATHATTU VILLAGE, KOTA POST, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 221.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.08.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A NO.502/2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNDAPURA IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.670/2023.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44670 CRL.RP No. 1555 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging judgment dated 28.08.2025 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) in Crl.A.no.502/2025 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2024 passed by Prl.Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundapura, in C.C.no.670/2023, this revision petition is filed.

¶23

Sri Kethan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petition is against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint against accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging accused had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant and on demand for return, issued cheque no.552151 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Kundapura Branch, when it presented for collection, returned as dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 19.07.2019. It was submitted, despite issuance of demand notice on 24.07.2019,

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:44670 CRL.RP No. 1555 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

which was duly served on 26.0.2019, accused failed to reply or make payment.

¶28

It was submitted on appearance accused denied

¶29

charges and sought to be tried. Thereafter complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Since accused had substantiated his defence in crossexamination of complainant, he did not lead any rebuttal evidence. It was submitted ignoring same, trial Court and first appellate Court passed impugned judgments convicting petitioner.

¶30

It was submitted, accused was a salesman in a shop, while complainant was a LIC agent. Cheque was issued towards premium for insurance policy, but misused by complainant. Thus, even when there was no material to establish legal enforceable debt, complaint was filed and both Courts had concurrently erred in taking note of same. Hence sought for allowing petition.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:44670 CRL.RP No. 1555 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶35

judgments and material on record.

¶36

This revision is by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , has held that revision petition can be entertained only in case of findings are contrary to provisions of law or suffering from perversity. Issuance of cheque, its presentation for collection and dishonored, issuance of demand notice, its receipt by accused and failure to reply are not in dispute. Sole contention urged by accused is that no legally enforceable debt and there was no material was placed by complainant to establish relationship of creditor and debitor between complainant and accused.

¶37

While passing impugned judgment, trial Court observed contents of complaint that as per request of accused, complainant had lent Rs.50,000/- and for repayment, accused issued cheque in question on 10.06.2019. Said cheque was presented for collection, it returned dishonored and demand

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:44670 CRL.RP No. 1555 of 2025

¶39

5 -

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

notice was issued and there was no reply or payment within time, therefore cause of action for prosecution of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act accrued.

¶42

It also noted that during cross-examination of PW1, accused set up defence of denying any loan transaction with complainant. However, it observed that complainant failed to elicit any admission in that regard. It observed contention that cheque was issued towards insurance premium would amount to admission of signature on cheque and its issuance to complainant, attracting presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Mere suggestion denying financial transaction with complainant would not upset such presumption. Therefore, appreciation of material on record, trial Court proceeded to convict accused. First appellate Court on re-appreciation concurred with finding.

¶43

On perusal of reasons assigned by trial Court/first appellate Court as well as material on record would indicate findings are fully in accordance with law and no case of perversity is established. Thus, there is no merit in revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶44