- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22204 CRL.RP No. 1091 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1091 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SMT. SHAILA B S W/O ANANTHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT No. 26, SHIVA SHAKTHI NILAYA 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MATHRU LAYOUT GKVK POST, YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 065. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANNAIAH C V, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI CHANDRAIAH H J S/O SRI JOGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT No. 7, OPP TO ANRIYA APARTMENT NORTH GATE 4TH CROSS, HANUMAPPA LAYOUT ALLASANDRA, GKVK POST, YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.07.2022 PASSED BY LII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.No.452/2020 WHICH Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22204 CRL.RP No. 1091 of 2022 CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.02.2020 IN C.C.No.13404/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND LEARNED 26TH A.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGES FRAMED AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.452/2020 by the LII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore wherein the conviction of the petitioner under judgment dated 12.02.2020 passed in C.C.No.13404/2016 by the Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM, Bengaluru convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. It is the case of respondent – complainant that accused is friend of his wife and during October 2013, accused approached him for financial assistance of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22204 CRL.RP No. 1091 of 2022 Rs.4,00,000/- to run a Hotel in the name and style of “Sri Shaila Fast Food” at Yelahanka New Town. The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- during November 2013 and another Rs.2,00,000/- during January 2014 by way of cash. In order to repay the said loan amount, petitioner- accused has issued a cheque bearing No.398077 dated 16.01.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited, Yelahanka Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque and it came to be dishonoured for the reasons “funds insufficient”. The complainant got issued legal notice and the same has been served on the petitioner-accused. The Petitioner-accused has not paid the cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. Therefore, the complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 4. The respondent - complainant has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The statement of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22204 CRL.RP No. 1091 of 2022 the petitioner – accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner–accused has been examined as DW.1 and examined one witness as DW.2 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2. As the accused disputed her signature on the cheque – Ex.P1, the said cheque has been sent to expert opinion along with the specimen signature of petitioner – accused. The expert after examining the signature on the cheque with specimen signature, has given report opining that the signature on the cheque - Ex.P1 is that of petitioner – accused. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by judgment dated 12.02.2020. 5. The said judgment has been challenged by the petitioner-accused before the Sessions Court in CrlA.No.452/2020. The said appeal came to be dismissed on merits affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22204 CRL.RP No. 1091 of 2022 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the wife of complainant was acquainted with petitioner – accused and she used to come to her house and she committed theft of cheque – Ex.P1 and the same has been misused by respondent – complainant. He further submits that the signature on Ex.P1 has been disputed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records. 8. The cheque is at Ex.P1. As the petitioner-accused has disputed her signature on cheque, the cheque – Ex.P1 along with specimen signature of petitioner are sent to forensic science expert. After examining the cheque – Ex.P1 and the specimen signatures of the petitioner- accused, the expert gave report opining that the signature on cheque Ex.P1 which is at Ex.P1(a) is that of petitioner- accused. As signature on Ex.P1 is proved, the presumption has to be drawn that the cheque is issued for discharge of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22204 CRL.RP No. 1091 of 2022 debt under Section 139 of N.I.Act. The said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof of rebutting the same is preponderance of probability. 9. The petitioner – accused has taken defence that the wife of respondent – complainant has committed theft of the cheque when she visited her house. The petitioner – accused has not filed any complaint against the wife of the complainant theft of cheque or the complainant for misuse of cheque. The petitioner – accused has not given any reply to the demand notice even though demand notice has been served on her. The petitioner – accused has not established her defence. The petitioner – accused has not rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The appellate Court re- appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. There - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22204 CRL.RP No. 1091 of 2022 are no grounds to entertain this revision petition. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37