IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 780 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

B S MANJUNATHA RAI, S/O SHANTHAPPA RAI,

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

R/O ANDAGOVE VILLAGE AND POST,

SUNTICOPPA,

SOMWARPET - 571 236.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M N VANAJAKSHI

W/O NANAIAH M M.,

W/O C. UTTAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

R/O ANDAGOVE VILLAGE AND POST,

SUNTICOPPA,

SOMWARPET - 571 236.

Digitally signed

…RESPONDENT

by ANUSHA V Location: H igh

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

Court of ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE Karnataka JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.84/2021 DATED 30.03.2023 AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.597/2019, DATED 06.11.2021 AND ACQUIT THE

ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.

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 30.03.2023 passed by Prl.

Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in Crl.A.no.84/2001 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.11.2021 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Madikeri, in C.C.no.5997/2019, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri R Shashidhara, learned counsel for petitioner submitted petition is against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent(complainant) had filed a private complaint against accused herein alleging that accused was known to complainant since several years and on 10.10.2018 accused had purchased 25 bags of coffee at rate of Rs.3,000/- per bag by paying Rs.5,000/- in cash and towards balance of Rs.70,000/- given a cheque no.631932 dated 20.10.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Sunticoppa Branch, Somawarpet Taluk, which when presented for collection on 17.01.2019 returned dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' and despite service of demand notice on

13.02.2019, accused failed to repay amount and thereby committed offence.

3. It was submitted on appearance, accused denied charges and sought to be tried. Thereafter complainant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. It was submitted, accused had taken various defence and substantiated same in cross-examination of complainant, firstly on ground that Ex.P.1-cheque was issued for purchase of plot in PACL India Ltd., Mysore of which complainant was stated to be an agent and secondly even when accused had denied and disputed transactional relationship with complainant as claimed, complainant had failed to produce any material to show that she had sold coffee to accused. It was submitted, on receipt of demand notice-Ex.P.3, accused had issued reply as per Ex.P.6 specifically taking said defence. Despite same, since no material was placed, adverse inference ought to have been drawn and presumption under Section 139 of NI Act ought to have been raised. On said ground, learned counsel submitted that impugned judgment of conviction by trial Court confirmed by first appellate Court suffered from perversity and sought for setting aside of same.

4. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and as well as copies of depositions and exhibits are made available fo0r perusal of Court by learned counsel for accused.

5. This revision petition is by accused against concurrent finding convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Main ground of challenge is alleged findings suffered from perversity. It is firstly contended that there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused and there was no material produced by complainant to subs