Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:496 CRL.RP No. 85 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 85 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI B.J. ANILKUMAR, S/O LATE JAYARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.129, 10TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.
WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF KSSIDC LIMITED, RAJAJINAGARA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 096. …PETITIONER [BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE (VC)] AND: A.M.YOGISHA, S/O A.N. MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/T NO.195, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, SHANKARANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 076. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE (PH)]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1529/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.4422/2013 BY THE XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU DATED 03.10.2017 AND ALLOW THE REVISION
Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:496 CRL.RP No. 85 of 2023
PETITION, BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT.
THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.11.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER Challenging judgment dated 07.01.2023 passed by LXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.1529/2017 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2017 passed by XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.4422/2013, this revision petition is filed.
Sri BS Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, revision petition was by accused against concurrent erroneous findings of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was submitted, present proceedings arose out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘CrPC’, for short) alleging that accused was introduced to complainant by his brother-in-law one CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:496 CRL.RP No. 85 of 2023
Govindaiah, and in June, 2012, accused obtained handloan of Rs.9 Lakhs from complainant to invest on immovable property, agreeing to repay within three months. On demand, accused had issued two cheques no.675612 and 675613 both dated 06.09.2012 for Rs.4,50,000/- each drawn on State Bank of India, Rajajinagar Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented, returned with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ on 07.11.2012 and even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 05.12.2012 as well as rejoinder notice dated 15.01.2013 were served on accused, he failed to repay amount within time and committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P22. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false. Same was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC. Thereafter, accused deposed as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D3. It was submitted, accused set up various defences including denying existence of relationship of creditor and
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:496 CRL.RP No. 85 of 2023
debtor, complainant failing to his financial capacity and about lending money. It was submitted, in cross-examination complainant admitted that in June 2012, he was having balance of Rs.90,000/- only and that he had not shown amount lent in his income tax return. PW.1 also admitted that Ex.P.19 - bank statement belonged to Harshita Construction and not to complainant. There is also admission about cheque being given to complainant's brother. Ignoring same, trial Court convicted accused. Even appeal filed was dismissed without proper re- appreciation leading to this revision petition.
Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 418, it was submitted, presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act were not absolute, but rebuttable on establishing probable defence and admissions elicited from PW.1 would be sufficient to upset presumption.
It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99, had held, non-acceptance of claim about lending large amount of money, without corroborative material, by trial Court
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:496 CRL.RP No. 85 of 2023
was held justified. Reliance was also placed on decision of this Court in case of UK Mahesh v. H Rajasekhara, reported in 2023:KHC:32028. It was submitted, impugned judgments thus suffered from perversity and sought for allowing revision petition.
On other hand, Sri Chandrashekar M, learned counsel appearing for Sri Bhargav G., advocate for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, cheque in question was given by accused to his brother-in-law to be handed over to complainant. Same would not cast any doubt about lending or issuance of cheque was not for any legally enforceable debt. It was submitted, Bank Statement showed complainant as proprietor of firm and Exs.P.20-22, IT returns of complainant shown income of more than Rs.20 Lakhs, substantiating financial capacity. In support of his submission, he relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 706, for proposition that on admission of drawing of cheque, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would be attracted and same cannot be upset by merely questioning financial
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:496 CRL.RP No. 85 of 2023
capacity of complainant. Therefore, there was no merit in any of contentions urged and prayed for dismissal of revision.
Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments and record.
Thus, this revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity of findings especially insofar as proof of lending, financial capacity of complainant and failure to hold that accused had upset presumption under Section 139 of NI Act.
Though, accused denied existence of relationship of creditor and debtor between himself and complainant, defence set up included that cheque was issued to his brother-in-law as well as that it was stolen. Same would amount to admission about cheque belonging to accused and bearing his signature. Same would attract presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act. As held in Basaligappa's case (supra), presumption would be rebuttable on establishment of probable defence. In this regard, accused questioned financial capacity of
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:496 CRL.RP No. 85 of 2023
complainant. Though there is admission about having only Rs.90,000/- in account in June, 2012, Exs.P20-22 - IT returns, indicate income in excess of Twenty Lakhs. There is no challenge of contents of IT returns. Moreover, record indicates, Construction Firm was a proprietorship. Findings of trial Court as well as Appellate Court are on appreciation of said material on record and by assigning reasons. Findings being based on material, cannot be questioned on ground of perversity. Therefore, none of decisions relied upon would be of any help to accused.
Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
Psg*/AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64