Sri. Arjun Kulkarni Vs Sri. Chandrashekar J

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.RP AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.33/2025 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT 1881 BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:52683 CRL.RP No. 1879 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Challenging concurrent, erroneous judgment dated 12.09.2025 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.33/2025 confirming judgment 19.12.2024 passed by Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.no.16407/2021, this revision petition is filed.

¶25

Sri MV Govind Bharath, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this revision petition is against concurrent findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short).

¶26

It was submitted, present proceedings arise out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that accused and his mother borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from father of complainant agreeing to repay it with interest at 18% p.a., within three years. Thereafter, complainant's father passed away on 23.05.2020 and on demand, accused had issued cheque bearing no.986079 for

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:52683 CRL.RP No. 1879 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Rs.3,50,000/- dated 07.10.2021 drawn on Federal Bank, Mysuru, which when presented for collection returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 11.10.2021 and thereafter, even when demand notice dated 03.11.2021 was got issued by complainant, returned 'unclaimed' on 18.11.2021 and accused had failed to repay amount within time stipulated, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short).

¶31

It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. On explaining incriminating materials, accused denied same, his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded and chose not to lead defence evidence. It was submitted, though in partial crossexamination of PW.1, accused had set up substantial defence denying legally enforceable debt as accused was only a surety and that too for limited amount of Rs.1 Lakh, which he had already repaid, trial Court without proper appreciation, passed impugned judgment based merely on presumption. It was submitted, even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52683 CRL.RP No. 1879 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

without re-appreciation, leading to this revision petition. It was submitted, impugned judgments suffered from perversity insofar as findings that issuance of Ex.P1 - cheque was towards legally enforceable debt and on above grounds sought for interference by allowing revision petition.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused impugned judgment.

¶36

From above, it is seen that revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgment convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶37

Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , held that scope for interference against concurrent findings would be extremely limited to examine whether findings suffered from perversity or infraction of statutory provisions.

¶38

Sole ground urged herein is perversity insofar as finding about existence of legally enforceable debt. In course of his defence, accused admitted that he had given Ex.P1 -

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:52683 CRL.RP No. 1879 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

cheque towards surety for loan obtained from complainant's father. Same would attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Though contention is urged that complainant had failed to establish debt of accused towards his father by producing loan agreement, same would not be material omission sufficient to upset presumption, especially when it has been contended by accused that his liability was to extent of Rs.1 Lakh which he had paid. Due to admission of liability and failure to substantiate that his liability was only to extent of Rs.1 Lakh, impugned judgments passed by trial Court and Appellate Court would be justified and in accordance with law.

¶43

No case for perversity is established. Revision petition is dismissed .

¶44

In view of dismissal of revision petition, I.A.no.1/2025 is also dismissed .

¶45

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

¶47

AV

Sri. Arjun Kulkarni v. Sri. Chandrashekar J

Case brief

What is this about?

Sri. Arjun Kulkarni v. Sri. Chandrashekar J

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

Namratha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri Dharanendra Kumar

Kumaraswamy Vs Shivamma

Mr K. S. Kumar Vs Mr. Sathish

Madhu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K M Vinod Babu Vs Navodaya Vividoddhesha Souharda Sahakara Niyamitha