Sri Ananda C G Vs Sri H K Deepu

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46606 CRL.RP No. 516 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 516 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. ANANDA C G S/O GOPALA C.M. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, COOK IN BCM HOSTEL, R/O.MOTOR GANGANNNA BEEDHI, MOORMANEHALLI ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. H.K. DEEPU S/O KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HADIHALLI VILLAGE, MALALUR PLOST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 133.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 13.05.2022 IN C.C.NO.1008/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND JUDGMENT DATED 09.03.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.230/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:46606 CRL.RP No. 516 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 13.05.2022 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikkamagaluru in C.C.no.1008/2020 and confirmed in judgment dated 09.03.2023 passed by Prl. Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.230/2022, this Revision Petition is filed.

¶23

Sri K.P. Bhuvan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Revision Petition is against concurrent erroneous judgments convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ( 'N.I. Act' ). It was submitted that respondent - complainant had filed a private complaint alleging that accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from complainant as hand loan in January 2019 for family necessity agreeing to repay same on demand. At that time accused had issued a postdated cheque bearing no.140240 dated 03.04.2019 drawn on

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:46606 CRL.RP No. 516 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

State Bank of India, Hosamane Extension Branch, Chikkmagaluru, for Rs.3,50,000/-, which when presented for encashment, had returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 04.04.2019. Despite issuance of demand notice, which was served, accused had failed to reply or comply with demand thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶28

On appearance and denial of charges, matter was set for trial, wherein complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. On appraisal of incriminating material which was denied by petitioner, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter accused had entered into witness box as D.W.1.

¶29

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 judgments suffered from perversity and call for interference.

¶30

It was firstly submitted, accused had denied his signature on cheque in question. In cross-examination of

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:46606 CRL.RP No. 516 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

complainant-P.W.1, it was elicited that ink of signature and wordings on cheque were different. Specific suggestion that signature on cheque was forged and mis-used, was denied. It was submitted that despite such specific suggestions/contention, complainant had failed to get cheques sent for signature verification. Therefore, without specific material, there was conviction.

¶35

It was further submitted that there was no legally enforceable debt as there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused. It was submitted, cheque was stolen, mis-used and present case filed. Further, respondent - complainant had failed to establish his financial capacity to lend such money. Absence of any documentation or witnesses to establish payments, lending of money would cast serious doubt and would be sufficient to upset presumption. It was submitted that in cross-examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that complainant had failed to show any documents to establish that he had Rs.3,50,000/- on date of lending money. Even though record of rights of lands were produced, there were no particulars of crop pattern or income as would be

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:46606 CRL.RP No. 516 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

sufficient to substantiate capacity to lend money. On said ground, sought for allowing Revision Petition.

¶40

On other hand, Sri Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel

¶41

for respondent - complainant opposed petition. It was submitted that both Courts had independent appreciation on material on record and passed impugned orders and same did not call for interference.

¶42

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments.

¶43

This Revision Petition is by accused against

¶44

concurrent orders convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Revision is sought on ground of perversity of findings.

¶45

Insofar as denial of signature on cheque, perusal of order passed by Trial Court would indicate that it had under Section 173 of Indian Evidence Act compared signature on cheque with signature of accused in Court records and found similarity. Further, when cheque was presented for collection,

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46606 CRL.RP No. 516 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

it returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and not due to difference in signature.

¶49

It is also worth noting that accused had not denied receipt of demand notice and failed to reply to same. 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 would not be sufficient enough to upset presumption available under provisions of N.I. Act. Therefore, contention regarding denial of signature of accused would not sustain.

¶50

Insofar as denial of relationship of creditor and debtor, since cheque was in possession of complainant and signature, as stated above, is established, presumption would accrue that same was issued towards legally enforceable debt. Said presumption though not absolute and it would be open for accused to set-up defence and upset presumption, except making suggestion that cheque was stolen, there is no other material. Admittedly, accused has not given any police complaint or intimation to Bank. Therefore, said contention does not hold good.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:46606 CRL.RP No. 516 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Insofar as denial of financial capacity of complainant, it is seen that during course of cross-examination P.W.1 stated that from income of lands he had arranged money. To support statement, he also produced record of rights of his lands as Exs.P6 to P9. Thus, there is sufficient material to substantiate complainant's case and mere denial of financial capacity or suggestion that record of rights would not be proof of income would not suffice.

¶55

In view of above, judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed against accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act would not suffer from any perversity. Same is based on material on record and by assigning proper reasons. Even Appellate Court on independent appraisal has passed order of confirmation. Thus, no grounds to interfere with concurrent findings are made out. Revision Petition is without merit and is

¶56

dismissed .

¶57

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶58

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK

Sri Ananda C G v. Sri H K Deepu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ananda C G v. Sri H K Deepu

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

Nikhil Zahid Infant Vs Sri Gurukumar G Choukimath

Mr. Pradeep Kumar K.S. Vs Mr. S.A. Raghavendra

Smt B K Pushpa Vs Sri M U Ganesh

Sri. Devendra Rao T. D. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh B Vs Chikkamagaluru Nagara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Limited

Sri Vishwas C Vs the State of Karnataka