IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 328 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

C NAGARAJU

S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,

AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.787,

SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA SWAMY

PRASANNA AMMA NILAYA,

1^ST FLOOR, HORA GHANTAPPA BEEDI,

NEAR 401 BUS STOP,

BBMP YELAHANKA OLD TOWN,

BENGALURU - 560 064.

…PETITIONER

[BY SRI RAMESHA H E., ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:

Y M SOMASHEKER

S/O LATE MUDDAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

R/AT HORA GHANTAPPA BEEDI,

Digitally signed BBMP 1^ST CROSS, NEAR 401 BUS STOP,

by ANUSHA V

Y C CHIDANANDA BUILDING,

Location: High YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, Court of BENGALURU - 560 064.

Karnataka …RESPONDENT

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRLA.NO.43/2023 AND JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2022 PASSED BY THE XII ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.971/2020. 2) ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION WITH

COSTS.

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 04.12.2023 passed by LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.43/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2022 passed by XII ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.971/2020, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Ramesha HE, learned counsel for petitioner submitted petition is against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent(complainant) had filed a private complaint against accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was known to complainant and in month of February 2019, obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to improve his tailoring business with assurance to repay same within 7 months. On demand after expiry of said period, accused had issued cheque no.239989 dated 06.09.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Yelahanka Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection on 18.10.2019 returned dishonored with endorsement dated 19.10.2019 as 'Account closed' and despite service of demand notice on 12.11.2019, accused failed to repay amount within time and thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

3. It was submitted on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. It was submitted, accused had setup substantial defence, denying and disputing quantum of money lent, without proper appreciation of elicitation in cross-examination, trial Court convicted accused. Though, appeal was filed and dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision. It was submitted, during cross-examination accused had suggested that after paying Rs.15,000/-, complainant had obtained cheque, but same was denied. Likewise, it was suggested, by lending Rs.25,000/-, complainant had added Rs.15,000/- as interest and issued chit for Rs.75,000/- as received, which is also denied. Even suggestion that complainant had obtained signed blank cheque and filled contents was also denied. These suggestions would probablize contention of accused, which was not justified and sought for allowing revision petition.

4. Respondent is served, but unrepresented.

5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and as well as trial Court records.

6. This revision petition is by accused against concurrent finding convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act by alleging findings suffer from perversity. Insofar as amount of money lent being different than mentioned in cheque, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court observed that accuse