Sri Rame Gowda Vs Smt. Rathnamma M

SRI. RAME GOWDA @ H.V.KODANDARAME GOWDA S/O. LATE VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT. NO.13/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD 8TH CROSS, OPP: RAHEJA APARTMENT GOVINDARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K.R. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. RATHNAMMA M. W/O. DEVAIAH K AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.685, 5TH MAIN UPKAR LAYOUT, NEAR ULLAL RTO OFFICE, BENGALURU - 560 091

¶15

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1085/2022

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50564 CRL.RP No. 1615 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

DATED 29.08.2025 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.2822/2021 DATED 17.08.2022 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.08.2022 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-6), in C.C.no.2822/2021 and confirmed in judgment dated 29.08.2025 passed by LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61), in Crl.A.no.1085/2022, this Revision Petition is filed.

¶23

Sri K.R.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for Sri C.Vishwanath Shetty submits that respondent - complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had approached complainant and availed hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in year 2017 assuring to return it within short period and issuing cheque no.789083 dated

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50564 CRL.RP No. 1615 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

31.03.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Canara Branch, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, towards repayment. It was further stated, accused had also executed an agreement dated 28.01.2020 undertaking to said effect. But, on presentation, cheque returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 28.05.2020 and even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 19.06.2020 was served, accused failed to reply or repay amount, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( N.I. Act ).

¶27

It was submitted on appearance accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. On being explained incriminating material, accused denied same as false. Same was recorded in a statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused examined himself as D.W.1 and another person as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.D-1 to D-11.

¶28

It was submitted, though accused had set up

¶29

substantial defence denying legally enforceable debt and existence of relationship of creditor and debtor, without proper

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:50564 CRL.RP No. 1615 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

consideration, Trial Court had convicted accused. Even appeal filed there against came to be rejected without proper reappreciation leading to this Revision.

¶34

It was submitted, accused was Auditor and complainant was one of his clients. Amount paid was towards audit fees and not as a loan. It was submitted that on 28.01.2020 complainant along with two persons had forcibly entered office of accused and forced him to sign on blank cheque and bond paper. Said bond paper was used to draw loan agreement and cheque used for filing case. It was submitted that there was absolutely no loan transaction between parties and complaint was totally false.

¶35

It was submitted deposition of D.W.2 about incident on 28.01.2020 would corroborate case of accused and would be sufficient to upset presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. For failure to take note of said position, judgments of both Courts suffered from perversity and call for interference.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused

¶37

impugned judgments.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50564 CRL.RP No. 1615 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

From above, it is seen that this Revision Petition is

¶41

by accused challenging concurrent judgments convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶42

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held that scope for interference against concurrent findings in Revision Petition would be limited to examining whether findings suffer from perversity or whether there was infraction of statutory provision. Challenge herein is on ground of finding insofar as existence of legally enforceable debt as being perverse.

¶43

While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court observed that complainant had clearly pleaded about lending Rs.5,00,000/- to accused, execution of an agreement to repay same on date of lending and issuance of cheque for repayment. Complainant produced cheque as Ex.P-1, agreement executed as Ex.P-7, signature of accused on agreement as Ex.P-7(a) and Bankers endorsement, demand notice and postal acknowledgement as Exs.P-2 to 5 respectively.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50564 CRL.RP No. 1615 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Very defence set up by accused that complainant had barged into office, snatched away 'signed cheques and signed bond paper', would amount to admission of his signature on cheque and its issuance to complainant, which would attract presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act in favour of complainant. In deposition of accused as well as D.W.2, they stated that on 28.01.2020 complainant along with two others had forced accused to execute cheque and bond paper. It is observed that after alleged date of snatching cheque on 28.01.2020 complainant presented cheque and issued demand notice and filed private complaint, while, accused has not even filed police complaint. Therefore, said contention would not be sufficient to upset presumption. Trial Court also examined denial of financial capacity of complainant to lend money or about infraction with provisions of Income Tax for having lent said money in cash. As per decision passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, said infraction would not discharge liability of accused under N.I. Act. It is also noted said reason appears to be in tune with material on record, besides very contention of accused that

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:50564 CRL.RP No. 1615 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

amount lent was towards his audit fees would be admission of financial capacity of complainant. Therefore, finding of Trial Court about financial capacity of complainant as well as commission of offence by accused cannot be said to be either contrary to record or without any basis.

¶50

In other words, they do not suffer from perversity. It is also seen that while passing impugned judgment, Appellate Court has re-appreciated evidence and concurred with findings. Thus, no case to attract Revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is made out. Revision Petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

¶51

In view of dismissal of Revision Petition, I.A.no.2/2025 filed for suspension of sentence also stands dismissed.

¶52

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶53

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Rame Gowda v. Smt. Rathnamma M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rame Gowda v. Smt. Rathnamma M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Dineshkumar Vs Smt S R Poornima

Mrs Deepa Vs Mrs Rajalaxmi

Sri. T.S. Suresh Vs State by Town Police

K Ashok Vs M/S Varada Areca Marketing

K Ashok Vs M/S Varada Areca Marketing

Sri B Krishnamurthy Vs Sri M Arun Kumar