IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 617 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

MR. PRADEEP KUMAR K.S.,

S/O SRIRANGACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

R/A NO.37, BANDE HOSUR,

KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK,

BENGALURU - 562 149.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHREEDHAR KOTRASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI DESAI RAJENDRA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. S.A. RAGHAVENDRA

S/O ANANDAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

R/AT NO.123/1, 1ST MAIN,

BEHIND GOVT. SCHOOL,

KARIYANNANAPALYA,

Digitally signed LINGARAJPURA, BENGALURU - 560 084.

by ANUSHA V …RESPONDENT

Location: H igh (BY SRI VIKAS M., ADVOCATE)

Court of

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

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2023 OF LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYOHALL (CCH-73) BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25189/2022 AND THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022 PASSED BY HONBLE XXXIV ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.55752/2019. B. ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT

1881.

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 16.02.2023 passed by LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-73), in Crl.A.no.25189/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2022 passed by XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (ACMM-34), in C.C.no.55752/2019, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Shreedhar Kotrashetti, learned counsel appearing for Sri Desai Rajendra Chandrashekar, advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was against concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short).

3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that complainant and accused were known to each other since several years and when accused approached him for hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- during first week of March, 2017, for his domestic and business needs, assuring to return same, complainant lent said money by transferring amount from his account as well as that of his brother and his wife.

4. For repayment, accused had issued 3 post-dated cheques bearing (i) no.000188 dated 15.07.2019 for Rs.6,00,000/-; (ii) no.000105 dated 15.07.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-and (iii) no.000108 dated 20.07.2019 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kammanahalli, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement on 29.07.2019 as "payment stopped by drawer" and thereafter failed to either comply with demand nor issued reply when complainant got issued legal notice, thereby committing offence punishable under Section

138 of NI Act.

5. On appearance and denial of charges, matter was set for trial, in which, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P10. It was submitted, on appraisal of incriminating material which was denied, statement of accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded and thereafter, Trial Court proceeded to convict accused and directed him to pay fine amount of Rs.18,42,500/-.

6. It was submitted, said judgment was in violation of principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity was not granted to accused to cross-examine complainant. It was submitted even when appeal was filed against said judgment, Appellate Court without proper examination dismissed same. Against concurrent erroneous decisions, present revision petition is filed.

7. It was firstly submitted, matter was listed for cross-

examination of PW.1 on 28.05.2021. Thereafter, on three occasions matter was adjourned since Presiding Officer was on leave. On three subsequent dates, matter was adjou