IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 80 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI PRAMOD N

S/O SRI NAGARAJACHAR,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

R/A BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE,

HEGGANAHALLI POST,

KUNDANA HOBLI,

DEVENAHALLI TALUK,

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI YOGESH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI SHANKAR M. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI SONNE GOWDA C

Digitally signed by

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

GEETHAKUMARI

PARLATTAYA S S/O SRI CHINNAPPA,

Location: High R/A NO.3, NEAR SURYODYA,

Court of

VIDYA MANDIR,

Karnataka

RAJANAKUNTE,

HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,

YELAHANKA TALUK,

BENGALURU-560 064.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHASHIKUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH

401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

18.11.2023 PASSED BY IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.94/2022 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2022 IN C.C.NO.635/2022 PASSED BY THE II A.C.J.M, BENGAURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU SENTENCING THE PETITIONER TO PAY FINE OF RS.7,00,000/- AND IN DEFAULT THE PETITIONER SHALL UNDERGO S.I FOR ONE YEAR AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S

138 OF N.I ACT.

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 18.11.2023 passed by IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.94/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2022 passed by II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.635/2022, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Yogesh HV, learned counsel appearing for Sri Shankar M Naik, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that present revision is arising out of proceedings initiated by respondent (complainant) in a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was a goldsmith well known to complainant and during 2^nd week of February, 2020, sought for Rs.5,00,000/- as hand loan for his business purpose. Since complainant had borrowed home-loan and was having cash in hand, on 15.02.2020, in presence of RT Raghu and Manjunath K, complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- in cash to accused. Accused had assured to repay same within six months with interest of Rs.12,000/- per annum. Accused had also executed an agreement in favour of complainant. On expiry of said period and on demand accused had issued cheque no.000278 on 21.09.2021 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on ICICI bank, Avenue road branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection returned dishonoured on 22.09.2021 with endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter even when demand notice dated 18.10.2024 got issued by complainant was served on 22.10.2021, he failed to repay amount within stipulated time or reply to notice, thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

3. It was submitted on appearance, accused denied defence and sought trial. Therefore complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 6. Thereafter incriminating material was explained to accused, which was denied and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter accused did not lead defence evidence. It was submitted without proper consideration, trial Court proceeded to convict accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed without re-appreciation leading to this revision.

4. It was submitted, complainant had sought to substantiate lending of loan by relying on loan agreement. As per complainant, loan was given in presence of two witnesses, neither of whom were examined. Same would have provided opportunity to accused to cross-examine them. Under such circumstances, order of conviction cannot be sustained. Further, complainant sought to substantiate his financial capacity by stating that amount borrowed as home l