- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17697 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1316 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT NAGAMMA AGED 47 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI MANJUNATHA RESIDING AT NO.10/40, 1ST MAIN 1ST CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. KESHAVA RESIDING AT NO.10/57, 4TH MAIN 11TH CROSS, SRINIVAS NAGAR BENGALURU-560 050 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.A CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.07.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.75/2017 PASSED BY THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-67) AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT 02.01.2017 IN C.C.NO.9546/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGES FRAMED. Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17697 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this revision petition, the petitioner assailed the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.75/2017 dated 08.07.2017 by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.9546/2015 dated 02.01.2017 by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (for short 'trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The accused is the friend of the complainant. On 15.03.2014, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as hand loan from the complainant with a promise to repay the same within nine months along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and she had executed on demand promissory note - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17697 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2017 and consideration receipt. However, the accused did not choose to pay either the interest or the principal amount and that after completion of the due date, the complainant insisted for repayment of the said loan amount. As such, the accused issued cheque bearing No.621440 dated 26.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Banashankari 3rd Stage Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. On instructions, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 30.12.2014, however, the same dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 05.01.2015. Though the said aspect was intimated to the accused, she failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, left with no other option, the complainant caused legal notice to the accused on 19.01.2015. Though the legal notice served to the accused, she failed to reply to the notice repay or to repay the cheque amount. As such, the complainant presented the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act'). 4. To prove the case before the trial Court, the complainant herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 08 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17697 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2017 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. However, the accused also examined herself as DW.1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.D1 and D2. 5. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the accused and passed the following: "ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s 265 of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,15,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fifteen thousand Only) within 20 days from today and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months. Out of the fine amount so collected Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the Complainant as Compensation and the balance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted towards cost to the State exchequer." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17697 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2017 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.75/2017. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard Sri Jagadish Baliga.N., learned counsel for the petitioner so also Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record. 8. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act without appreciating the evidence on record in a right perspective. He further contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court totally failed to appreciate the probable defence put forth by the accused that the complainant is totally a stranger to her and at no point of time, the complainant lent hand loan to her. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17697 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2017 Further, the complainant had no lending capacity to advance hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2014. In such circumstances, the accused has rebutted the initial presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, she prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. She further contended that the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents placed by her clearly proves that the accused had availed the hand loan of Rs.2 lakh from the complainant and to discharge the said liability, the accused had issued Ex.P1-cheque. The defence put forth by the accused totally contradictory since she admitted in her cross examination that she know the accused well since 4 to 5 years. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17697 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2017 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 11. It could be gathered from records that, the cheque in question-Ex.P1 and the signature on it is not seriously disputed by the accused. Though she raised a defence that she was unaware of the complainant, but in her cross examination she admitted that she knows the complainant since 4-5 years. Nevertheless, she admitted her signature on the on demand promissory note at Ex.P6 and on the consideration receipt at Ex.P7. There is no explanation by her that how Ex.P1, P6 and P7 is in the possession of the complainant. 12. No doubt, initial presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act is a rebuttal one. However, as per the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, such presumption can be rebutted only by placing a probable defence with material documents and evidence. In the case on hand, the accused has totally failed to rebut the initial presumption by placing cogent evidence. Hence, in my considered view both the trial Court and the First - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17697 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2017 Appellate Court rightly passed the judgments and the interference does not call for at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23