IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 427 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

SRI V. SHIVA REDDY

S/O LATE BEERE GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

PWD CONTRACTOR,

BMP NO.40, 2^ND FLOOR,

NAGARAJAPPA BUILDING,

SUDDAGUNTE PALYA,

OPP. CHINMAYA APARTMENT,

BENGALURU-560 029.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI C. RAMESH

S/O CHIKKE GOWDA

Digitally signed

DEAD BY HIS L.R'S

by ANUSHA V

Location: High A) SUNANDA RAMESH

Court of

W/O C. RAMESH,

Karnataka

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

B) SMT. NEEVEDITHA RAMESH

D/O C. RAMESH,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

C) SMT. SMITHA RAMESH

D/O C. RAMESH,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

R/AT NO.318/A,

100 FEET ROAD, 1^ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CLIVE JOHNS QUADROS, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.22699/2010 DATED 04.01.2021 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging concurrent, erroneous judgment dated

07.03.2023 passed by LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.25010/2022 confirming judgment dated 04.01.2021 passed by X ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.22699/2010, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri MK Nanjunda Gowda, 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, present proceedings arise out of a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that complainant and accused were relatives and jointly undertook contract work 'Mandya Package' at Srirangapatna and Mallavalli sub-divisions by joint investment. As dispute arose between them with regard to sharing of amount/profits, same was got settled in presence of elders wherein Settlement Deed was executed on 21.09.2004, whereunder accused had agreed to pay sum of Rs.45,34,140/- and issued two cheques dated 01.04.2005 and 21.04.2005 for Rs.29,00,000/- and Rs.16,34,140/- respectively drawn on Kolar Gramin Bank, Kolar, in favour of complainant. Said cheques, when presented for collection returned dishonored with endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer'. Thereafter, when demand notice dated 29.06.2005 got issued by complainant was served on accused, he failed to repay amount within time stipulated, thereby committed offence punishable under Section

138 of NI Act.

4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P11. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which were denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Subsequently, accused examined himself along with two others as DWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D13.

5. It was submitted, though accused had taken defence denying legally enforceable debt, execution of Settlement Deed as well as disputing financial capacity of complainant to pay amount and contending that cheques in question were issued to one Cheluvegowda examined as DW.1 and substantiated same in cross-examination of PW.1 and by examining said Cheluvegowda and Sudhakar Reddy, witnesses to alleged settlement as DWs.1 and 2, trial Court without proper appreciation, proceeded to convict accused. Thus, conclusion arrived at by trial Court were contrary to material on record and as such perverse. It was submitted, even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re- appreciation, leading to this revision petition. Therefore, impug