IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 717 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

MR. NARAYANA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

PROPRIETOR,

SRI LAKSHMI SYSTEMS,

R/A NO.78/5,

2^ND MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, RAITHARA BEEDHILL,

P J EXTENSION,

DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

…PETITIONER

[BY SRI DHANUSH M., ADVOCATE]

AND:

MR. VASANTHA KUMAR,

PROPRIETOR,

SRI SHARADA AGENCY, 2^ND CROSS, JAMBANNA RICE MILL COMPOUND,

JAIL ROAD, HOSAMANE,

Digitally signed

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

by ANUSHA V

…RESPONDENT

Location: High

Court of

[BY SRI PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE]

Karnataka

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

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.35/2022 AND JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHIVAMOGGA IN

C.C.NO.3044/2018.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment dated 17.02.2023 passed by Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Shivamogga, in Crl.A.no.35/2022 confirming judgment dated 10.02.022 passed by Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga, in C.C.no.3044/2018, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Dhanush M., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was by accused challenging concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short).

3. It was submitted, present proceedings arise out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC',) stating that he was running a furniture distribution shop, where accused used to purchase furniture on credit for sale at his retail shop. As on 25.11.2017, he was due a total sum of Rs.4,74,494/- and on demand, had issued cheques no.901581 and 901582 dated 31.07.2018 and 16.07.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- and 2,75,000/- respectively, which on presentation, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 02.08.2018 and even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 07.08.2018 was served on 10.08.2018, accused failed to reply or repay amount within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section

138 of NI Act.

4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charge and sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9. And when trial Court apprised accused of incriminating material, he denied same and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Thereafter accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D3. Thereafter, trial Court passed impugned judgment convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re-appreciation, leading to this revision petition.

5. At outset, it was submitted, accused disputed existence of relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused and issuance of Exs.P.1 and 2 - cheques towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Even then complainant failed to produce record to establish lending of money to accused. Ignoring said omission, impugned order of conviction was passed, which would be contrary to record.

6. Apart from above, cheques in question were given as security for earlier supply of material and for which payment was made. Said cheques were misused in present case.

7. It was further submitted, total of Rs.1,69,755/- i.e.

Rs.69,755/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 06.02.2018 and 26.02.2018 respectively was repaid. But there was no corresponding reduction from claim in question. It was submitted, in cross- examination, PW.1 admitted, excluding same accused was due Rs.3,96,000/-, but amount mentioned in Demand Notice was different i.e. Rs.4,75,000/-. And instead of restricting claim to admitt