IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 233 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

JAWAD PASHA,

S/O ABDUL KHADAR,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS,

R/AT NO 615/1, 5^TH 'A' CROSS,

KEMPEGOWDANAGAR,

T. DASARAHALLI,

BANGALORE - 560 057.

…PETITIONER

[BY SRI MAHESH S.N., ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:

H R HARIKUMAR,

S/O LATE B M RANGEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

R/AT NO.12, 8^TH MAIN,

1^ST CROSS,

AVANUR EXTENSION,

Digitally signed

BANGALORE - 560 073.

by

GEETHAKUMARI …RESPONDENT

PARLATTA YA S

Location: High [BY SRI PARAMASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE (PH)]

Court of

Karnataka

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

1.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1072/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU. 2.TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT / ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.11.2021 PASSED IN C.C.NO.7202/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XX A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITIONER BY ACQUITTING

THE PETITIONER.

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 06.12.2023 passed by LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61), in Crl.A.no.1072/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2021 passed by XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.7202/2019, this revision petition is filed.

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

3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed complaint stating that he was a Class-I Electrical Contractor, while accused was a Civil Contractor and known to complainant since 10 years had obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant in first week of October, 2018, on assurance that same would be repaid within three months. Thereafter on 15.01.2019, paid Rs.5,000/- in cash and issued two post dated cheques bearing no.150081 dated 25.01.2019 for Rs.30,000/- and no.150083 dated 28.01.2019 for Rs.65,000/- both drawn on Axis Bank, Shanthinagar Branch, Bengaluru, which were presented for collection. It was stated, while cheque no.150081 returned dishonoured with endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’ on 25.01.2019, cheque no.150083 returned dishonoured with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ on 01.02.2019 and even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 18.02.2019 was served on 20.02.2019, accused failed to repay amount within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused had denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P7. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Thereafter, accused stepped into witness-box as DW-1 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D3. It was submitted, accused had taken up various defences including that there was no legally enforceable debt between parties for issuance of cheque in question, that said cheques no.150078 to 150084 were signed blank cheques with some mentioning date and amount also, issued on 18.07.2016 to one Byranna as security for Chit transaction. Said Byranna had filed C.C.no.25295/2018 against accused by using cheque no.150084 and colluded with complainant herein to file present case by misusing cheque. It was contended accused was Class-I - Contractor while his wife was a Doctor and they were having handsome income and there was no need for borrowing.

5. It was submitted, in his deposition, PW.1 had stated that he knew accused since 10 years but, admits he is unaware of occupation of wife and son of accused, was unaware since when accus