IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 133 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

SRI RAFEEQ, S/O M A MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O KIRUGUNDA VILLAGE AND POST, GONIBEEDU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 550.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI AMARNATH M H., S/O M G HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O BILAGULA, Digitally signed HESGAL POST, by ANUSHA V MUDIGERE TALUK, Location: High CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577550.

Court of …RESPONDENT Karnataka (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD M S., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85/2023, IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND JUDGMENT DATED 19.04.2023 IN C.C.NO.456 OF 2021, IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDIGERE.

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 10.11.2023 passed by Pr.

District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.85/2023 confirming judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudigere, in CC no.456/2021, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri HU Vachan, 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).

3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) has filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) stating that accused was known to him and on 01.12.2019, obtained financial assistance for tune of Rs.2,50,000/- agreeing to repay same on 05.03.2020 and on demand, issued cheque bearing no.602095 dated 05.03.2020, which when presented on 06.03.2020, returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and thereafter, failed to either repay amount or reply to demand notice dated 16.03.2020 got issued by complainant served on him on 24.03.2020, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. On accused being appraised of incriminating material, which he denied false, his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Therefore, accused examined himself as DW.1 but did not get marked any documents. It was submitted, though accused raised substantial defence and established same, without proper appreciation, trial Court convicted him. It was submitted, even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re-

appreciation, leading to this revision petition.

5. It was firstly submitted, accused had disputed relationship of creditor and debtor between accused and complainant. It was contended, cheque in question was issued to one Prasanna from whom accused had borrowed loan and thereafter, repaid same. But at that time, cheque was not returned. Same was misused by complainant herein. It was submitted, fact that as per complainant, cheque was issued on 05.03.2020 and very next day presented for payment would itself probabilize his version. It was also submitted, private complaint filed was beyond period stipulated under Section 138 of NI Act from date of service of notice by complainant and as such, complaint was untenable. On above grounds, sought interference.

6. On other hand, Sri MS Raghavendra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts concurrently arrived at well reasoned findings convicting accused by referring to material on record. Said findings did not suffer from perversity and sought for dismissal of petition.

7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and record.

8. From above, it is seen that revisio