IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1166 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

CHANDRASHEKAR S/O APPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O HUYIGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHWATH C.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

DASEGOWDA B., S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O GUNGRALCHATHRA, GRAMA, ELAWALA HOBLI, Digitally signed MYSORE TALUK, by ANUSHA V MYSORE - 570 016.

Location: High …RESPONDENT Court of Karnataka (BY SRI Y.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

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 SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.07.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRL.A.NO.45/2023 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE IN C.C.NO.3746/2018.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment dated 14.07.2023 passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Crl.A.no.45/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2023 passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore, in C.C.no.3746/20218, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Ashwath C.M., learned counsel appearing for Sri Mohan B.K., advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short).

3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that complainant and accused were known to each other, when accused had approached complainant for loan of Rs.3,50,000/-, complainant had lent same in July, 2017 on assurance of returning it within one year. Thereafter, when accused failed to repay and complainant demanded return, accused had issued cheque bearing no.502717 dated 06.08.2018 for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Hunsur Branch, Hunsur, which when presented for collection on 06.08.2018 returned with endorsement on 08.08.2018 as "funds insufficient" and even when complainant had got issued demand notice dated 29.08.2018, which was duly served, accused had failed to either repay amount or reply to notice and thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. On appearance and accused seeking trial, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and one Umesh as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On appraisal of incriminating material, which were denied, statement of accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused examined himself as DW.1, but, did not got marked any documents.

5. It was submitted, accused had set-up substantial defence, firstly, contending that cheque was issued as security for an earlier loan transaction for Rs.25,000/- between complainant and accused and which was cleared, but by misusing said cheque, present complaint was filed. It was secondly submitted, accused had clearly denied and disputed financial capacity of complainant to pay amount. During cross- examination, it was admitted by PW.1 that his monthly income from grocery shop was Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and there was no other material to substantiate complainant's financial capacity to lend sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. It was further submitted, complainant's claim that it was cash transaction would also lead to doubt.

6. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and Ors., reported in (2020) 12 SCC 724, held in case complainant claims transaction with accused was in cash and accused denied or d