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

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45983 CRL.RP No. 617 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 617 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. PRADEEP KUMAR K.S., S/O SRIRANGACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO.37, BANDE HOSUR, KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 149.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHREEDHAR KOTRASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DESAI RAJENDRA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MR. S.A. RAGHAVENDRA S/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.123/1, 1ST MAIN, BEHIND GOVT. SCHOOL, KARIYANNANAPALYA, LINGARAJPURA, BENGALURU - 560 084.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI VIKAS M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2023 OF LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYOHALL (CCH-73) BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25189/2022 AND THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022 PASSED BY HONBLE XXXIV ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.55752/2019. B. ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT 1881.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:45983 CRL.RP No. 617 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 dated 16.02.2023 passed by LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-73), in Crl.A.no.25189/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2022 passed by XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (ACMM-34), in C.C.no.55752/2019, this revision petition is filed.

¶23

Sri Shreedhar Kotrashetti, learned counsel appearing for Sri Desai Rajendra Chandrashekar, advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was against concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ( 'NI Act ', for short).

¶24

It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, (' CrPC ', for short) alleging that complainant and accused were known to each other since several years and

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45983 CRL.RP No. 617 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

when accused approached him for hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/during first week of March, 2017, for his domestic and business needs, assuring to return same, complainant lent said money by transferring amount from his account as well as that of his brother and his wife.

¶28

For repayment, accused had issued 3 post-dated cheques bearing (i) no.000188 dated 15.07.2019 for Rs.6,00,000/-; (ii) no.000105 dated 15.07.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-and (iii) no.000108 dated 20.07.2019 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kammanahalli, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement on 29.07.2019 as "payment stopped by drawer" and thereafter failed to either comply with demand nor issued reply when complainant got issued legal notice, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶29

On appearance and denial of charges, matter was set for trial, in which, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P10. It was submitted, on appraisal of incriminating material which was denied, statement

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:45983 CRL.RP No. 617 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

of accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded and thereafter, Trial Court proceeded to convict accused and directed him to pay fine amount of Rs.18,42,500/-.

¶34

It was submitted, said judgment was in violation of principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity was not granted to accused to cross-examine complainant. It was submitted even when appeal was filed against said judgment, Appellate Court without proper examination dismissed same. Against concurrent erroneous decisions, present revision petition is filed.

¶35

It was firstly submitted, matter was listed for cross-

¶36

examination of PW.1 on 28.05.2021. Thereafter, on three occasions matter was adjourned since Presiding Officer was on leave. On three subsequent dates, matter was adjourned since complainant was not present. Thereafter, on four occasions complainant and accused were present, matter was adjourned due to absence of counsel for accused for cross-examination. Thereafter, without further opportunity, cross-examination was taken as 'nil' and Trial Court proceeded to pass impugned

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:45983 CRL.RP No. 617 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

order. This would substantiate that adequate opportunity was not granted to accused.

¶41

It was further submitted, there was no legally enforceable debt and there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused. It was submitted, complainant had in fact got kidnapped accused and snatched three signed cheques from him and misused same for filing present complaint. In view of above, accused had issued direction to his banker to stop payment on said cheques. It was submitted, due to lack of opportunity, petitioner was unable to produce said material. On above grounds sought for allowing revision petition.

¶42

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and certified copy of entire order sheet of Trial Court made available by counsel for accused.

¶43

As noted above, this revision petition is against concurrent findings convicting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. , reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , has held scope for interference in revision

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:45983 CRL.RP No. 617 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

would be normally confined to examining whether findings suffer from perversity or contrary to provisions of law.

¶48

Contentions urged are about Trial Court passing impugned judgment in violation of principles of natural justice. Perusal of order-sheet of Trial Court would indicate that matter was indeed set for cross-examination of PW.1 - Complainant on 28.05.2021. On said date, it was adjourned to 12.07.2021 and thereafter to 06.08.2021 and 27.08.2021 due to Presiding Officer being on leave. From 27.08.2021, PW.1 and counsel was present, accused sought time to cross-examine. Thereafter on 01.09.2021, 14.09.2021, 05.10.2021 PW.1 was present and matter was adjourned at instance of accused. Subsequently on 02.11.2021 and 23.12.2021, matter was again adjourned due to Presiding Officer being on leave. On 13.01.2022, 10.02.2022 and 28.02.2022 though PW.1 was present, there was no crossexamination on PW.1. Therefore, Trial Court passed order holding cross-examination of PW.1 as 'nil' and proceeded to pass impugned order. Above narration would indicate that there was sufficient opportunity to accused for cross-examination of PW.1. Therefore, it cannot be stated that matter was disposed of without adequate opportunity to petitioner.

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:45983 CRL.RP No. 617 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Learned counsel for petitioner has not clarified whether opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence was sought at time of recording statement under Section 313 of CrPC and whether same was denied. Thus contention about lack of opportunity would not sustain and requires to be rejected. Insofar as contention that cheques in question were snatched by complainant while accused was kidnapped, admittedly there is no material to establish any such allegation and no complaint is filed by accused. Even intimation is not given to bank.

¶53

Under above circumstances, when Trial Court and Appellate Court have passed judgment on appreciation of material on record and by assigning proper reasons, convicting petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, there would be no scope for interference as findings are not established to be perverse or contrary to provisions of statute. Revision petition is therefore dismissed .

¶54

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶55

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Dasappa Vs State of Karnataka

K.M. Ravikumar @ Child Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish @ Burude Vs State of Karnataka by

Balaji S Vs Prakash.

Nikhil Zahid Infant Vs Sri Gurukumar G Choukimath

Smt B K Pushpa Vs Sri M U Ganesh