IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 379 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O LATE CHAYABBA,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

R/AT BEHIND MASJID,

ANGARAGUNDI,

BAIKAMPADY POST,

MANGALURU - 575 001.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEDN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/s. PRAVEEN CREDIT SAUHARDA

CO. OP NIYAMITHA,

REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,

EMBASSY PLAZA, PUMPWELL,

MANGALURU - 575 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI HARSHA G. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed

by ANUSHA V

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

Location : High TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND Court of SENTENCE 21.11.2022 MADE IN C.C.NO.1678/2014 BY THE IV

Karnataka

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MANGALURU AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2024 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.245/2022 BY THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE

OFFENCE.

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 20.01.2024 passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalurur, in Crl.A.no.245/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2022 passed by IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Mangaluru, in C.C.no.1678/2014, this revision petition is filed.

2. Smt.Haleema Ameen, learned counsel appearing for Sri Ashok Kumar Shetty K., advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that this revision petition is filed challenging current erroneous judgments, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was stated that present proceedings were initiated by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused had approached complainant for vehicle loan for purchase of TATA Tipper bearing registration no.KA-03-A-3238 and obtained loan of Rs.2,25,000/- on

06.04.2011.

3. It was stated that loan agreement and promissory note for repayment of loan were executed and accused had issued cheque no.891201 dated 21.08.2013 for Rs.3,16,150/- drawn on Indian Bank, Pumpwell Junction, Mangalore branch, which when presented, returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 21.08.2013 and even when demand notice was got issued by complainant, same returned to sender with endorsement 'addressee left India' on 28.03.2013 and having failed to repay amount within time, accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. On appearance, accused pleaded not guilty and sought trial. Complainant examined its Accounts Officer as PW- 1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P9. On being explained incriminating material, accused denied same. His statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D5.

5. It was submitted, accused had setup substantial defence that accused was not borrower, but was surety for vehicle loan availed by one Ashraf and had issued cheque for surety purposes and that there was no legally enforceable debt for issuance of Exhibit-P2 - cheque, without proper appreciation trial Court convicted accused. Even appeal filed there against was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision. It was submitted that impugned judgments suffered from perversity and sought interference.

6. It was submitted, in his deposition, DW-1 had specifically stated that he had not purchased any vehicle or obtained loan. But had stated that one Ashraf had taken him to complainant - Bank and opened account and had got him to sign certain documents by stating that same was as surety for vehicle loan. It was stated, accused was working at Saudi Arabia since for 25 years and transactions had occurred while he was not in country. Even demand notice was not duly served. Further, E