1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE .22nd DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1301/2015 C/W. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1300/2015 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.327/2019 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.328/2019 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1301/2015: BETWEEN: 1 . N.S. RANGAPPA S/O N. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.748, JANAPRIYA CHIKKASANDRA BENGALURU-90. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . G. MAHANTHAMMA W/O P. VENKATESH AGE: MAJOR, R/AT NO.193/B, 55TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 10. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHILASH H.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU(CCH-70) IN CRL.A.NO.719/2014 DATED 14.09.2015 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE XX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.36276/2010 DATED 19.06.2014 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1300/2015: BETWEEN: 1 . N.S. RANGAPPA S/O N. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.748, JANAPRIYA CHIKKASANDRA BENGALURU-90. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . G. MAHANTHAMMA W/O P. VENKATESH AGE: MAJOR R/AT NO.193/B 55TH CROSS, 4TH BLCOK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 10. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHILASH H.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU(CCH-70) IN CRL.A.NO.720/2014 DATED 14.09.2015 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY 3 THE XX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.10144/2010 DATED 19.06.2014 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.327/2019: BETWEEN: 1 . KAVITHA G.H., W/O N.S.RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A NO.36, 3RD CROSS ACHUTHANAGARA SOLADEVANAHALLI BAGALKUNTE BENGALURU-560 073. ALSO R/A DUGGAVARA VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . G. MAHANTHAMMA W/O P. VENKATESH AGE: MAJOR R/AT NO.193/B 55TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHILASH H.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE) 4 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) r/w 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) IN CRL.A.NO.823/2016 DATED 11.02.2019 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.17270/2010 DATED 02.07.2016 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION. IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.328/2019: BETWEEN: 1 . KAVITHA G.H., W/O N.S. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A NO.36, 3RD CROSS ANCHUTHANAGARA SOLADEVANAHALLI BAGALKUNTE BENGALURU-560 073. ALSO R/A DUGGAVARA VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA-572 3123. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . G. MAHANTHAMMA W/O P. VENKATESH AGE: MAJOR, R/AT NO.193/B, 55TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHILASH H.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE) 5 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 379(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) IN CRL.A.NO.822/2016 DATED 11.02.2019 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.20630/2010 DATED 02.07.2016 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION. THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.02.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in respective petitions. These revision petitions are filed by the accused who are husband and wife against the order of conviction and sentence and also confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court in all the cases wherein claim was made by the complainant that Cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each in Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015, Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.327/2019 and in another case the Cheque was issued for an amount of 6 Rs.1,50,000/- challenging the concurrent finding in respective cases. 2. The factual matrix of each case of the complainant Smt.G.Mahantamma who is the common complainant in all the cases and accused N.S.Rangappa who is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015 and Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015 in other two criminal revision petitions, Smt.Kavitha.G.H who is the wife of N.S.Rangappa who is the revision petitioner in other two cased and claim of complainant that accused that is N.S.Rangappa had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by issuing the Cheque which is the subject matter. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- and in respect of the Kavitha.G.H is concerned in C.C.No.17270/2010 (Crl.R.P.No.327/2019) and complainant contend that she has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and issued a Cheque dated 21.10.2010 and also an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of 7 C.C.No.20630/2010 (Crl.R.P.No.328/2019) vide Cheque dated 10.02.2010 and Trial Court convicted and sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- as against Rs.2,00,000/- and in respect of Rs.1,50,000/- an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. It is the specific case of the complainant before the Trial Court in all the cases that the accused persons having received the money issued the Cheque in favour of the complainant and those Cheques were dishonored and despite of statutory notice, the accused failed to make the payment and filed complaint. The Trial Court has taken cognizance on the complaint of complainant in all the cases and complainant has been examined as PW1 and got marked the documents in respect cases. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and accused himself examined as DW1 in all the cases and the husband/accused examined one witness as DW2 as he is also one of the chit member. In Crl.R.P.No.327/2019 and Crl.R.P.No.328/2019 the complainant examined herself as 8 DW1 and examined her husband as DW2 in both the cases and got marked documents in respective cases. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted and sentenced the accused in all the cases. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, appeals are filed before the First Appellate Court by the respective parties and in the appeal also the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence, these revision petitions are filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that in respect of the Cheque bounce case also the complaint filed in O.S.No.1554/2010 for recovery of money against N.S.Rangappa and the said suit came to dismissed. The counsel also would vehemently contend that based on same transaction suit was filed and the same defense was taken in civil suit as well as the 9 criminal case inspite of the dismissal of the suit, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused in both the cases. The counsel would vehemently contend that there is an alteration in loan agreement and cases are filed after three years and suffers from limitation and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court. 4. The counsel in Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015 would vehemently contend that though income tax of years 2007 and 2008 was filed for having made the payment for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- by the complainant to the accused N.S.Rangappa, the case of the complainant that she has also paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to wife and there was no capacity to pay such amount. The counsel would vehemently contend that the date of transaction is not stated in the complaint and Ex.P1 was given as security in respect of the Chit transaction. 5. The counsel would vehemently contend that Ex.D1 probabilize the defense of the accused that 10 N.S.Rangappa was a subscriber of the chit and inspite of the same is produced before the Trial Court and the Trial Court not considered the same. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though the document of Ex.P10 got marked as agreement, but signature was not marked. The counsel also would vehemently contend that service of notice also in respect of wrong address and Ex.D2 is very clear with regard to the premises address No.42/1, Sumana Nilaya Street, Pipeline road, Mathikere, Netaji circle, Bangalore-560054 and agreement address is in respect of No.6, 26th cross, Bagalagunte, Bangalore-73 different address and legal notice also sent to the same address. The counsel also would vehemently contend that no finding was given by the Trial Court regarding source and also no finding in respect of Ex.P10. The First Appellate Court also failed to consider the material on record and only re-iterated the reasons given by the Trial Court. 11 6. The counsel also in respect of other revision petition is concerned that is Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015 would contend that though it is the case of the complainant that he gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Cheque dated 06.11.2009 and in the agreement not stated anything about the transaction and notice was also not served and same was returned with an endorsement ‘not claimed’ and complainant was not having any financial capacity. It is also emerged in the evidence that Ex.P22 is corrected and witnesses have not been examined and complainant also not stated anything about the date and place of loan transaction. 7. The counsel would vehemently contend that in respect of other two revision petitions that is Crl.R.P.No.327/2019 and Crl.R.P.No.328/2019 are concerned wherein also cases are initiated against the wife of revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015 and Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015 and in respect of the said 12 transaction, notice was issued and same was unserved and date of transaction was not disclosed and there was no any financial capacity and specific defense was taken that it was the chit transaction. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the Cheques are marked, the Trial Court imposed the exorbitant fine of Rs.60,000/- in both the cases though Cheques are Rs.2,00,000/- and awarded an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- and in respect of another Cheque Rs.1,00,000/- an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was awarded and hence, this Court has to interfere with finding of the Trial Court. 8. The counsel in support of his argument he relies upon the judgment reported in (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 236 in case of John K.Abraham V/s Simon C.Abraham and another and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.7 and 8 wherein the Apex Court discussed in 13 detail with regard to High Court has committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.9 wherein observation is made that in order to draw the presumption under Section 118 read along with Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden was on heavily upon the complainant to have shown that he had the required funds for having advanced the money to the accused; that the issuance of the Cheque in support of the said payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the Cheque in favour of the complainant and also an observation is made that the reasoning given by the High Court would amount to a perverse one and judgments cannot be sustained. 9. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend in respect of Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015 that Ex.D1 is produced and marked before the Trial Court is only after thought and there was 14 no any pleading to that effect and also document was not confronted and there is an admission that both of them are habitual defaulters, but admitted the receipt of money but contention that it was only a chit transaction. The counsel would vehemently contend that Ex.P20 is very clear that notice was served to the wife and in respect of the same address, even though contend that the addresses are different. The counsel in respect of other revision petition that is Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015 would contend that civil Court finding not binding though the same transaction. The counsel would vehemently contend that receipt of amount is admitted and Ex.P22 and Ex.P20 discloses with regard to the transaction is concerned and when there is an admission regarding receipt of money is concerned, question of interfering in the revision petition does not arise. 10. The counsel in respect of Crl.R.P.No.327/2019 would contend that in the complaint itself in paragraph No.2 15 narrated with regard to the loan transaction is concerned and also encashed the Cheque and no limitation of place since the same is within three years and the very contention that complaint is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. 11. The counsel in respect of Crl.R.P.No.328/2019 there was a due service of notice, no reply was given and Ex.P9 clearly discloses for having served the notice and the fact that both husband and wife are the habitual offenders is not in dispute and there is a clear admission on the part of the revision petitioner when they have been examined before the Trial Court and the very admission takes away the case and documentary evidence placed before the Trial Court and the same evidence the fact that there was a transaction and receipt of money and not repaid the same. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though defense of chit transaction was raised the same has not been accepted by the Trial Court since no cogent material is 16 placed regarding chit transaction is concerned. The counsel also would contend that when the slip of chit transaction is produced as exhibit ‘D’ series in all the cases and contend that the same contains the signature of the complainant and the same is specifically disputed and the same has not been sent to the handwriting expert to prove that signature belongs to the complainant and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court and not committed any error. 12. The counsel also in support of his argument he relied upon the judgment reported in MANU/SC/1101/2009 in case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma V/s Daya Sapra wherein discussion was made with regard presumption and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.30 wherein discussion was made with regard to the judgment in case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. V/s Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. reported in 2005 CriLJ 2161 wherein discussion was made in paragraph No.32 that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of 17 findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.31 wherein also discussion was made in the case of P.Swaroopa Rani V/s M.Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu reported in AIR 2008 SC 1884 wherein also paragraph No.13 was extracted and discussion was made regarding presumption as well as rebuttal of the presumption. 13. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court decided on 03.12.20215 reported in MANU/KA/3495/2015 in case of Sentilnathan V/s The Fortune Group Propstar L.L.P and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.9 wherein discussion was made with regard to the finding in the Cheque bounce case will be 18 on rule of “proof beyond reasonable” doubt while a civil case will be adjudicated on the principle of “preponderance of probability”. 14. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.331/2022 dated 21.10.2024 in case of Sri. Lalji Kesha Vaid V/s Sri.Dayanand.R wherein also discussion was made with regard to a suit for recovery of money due from a borrower and indisputably it is maintainable at the instance of the creditor. It is further more beyond any doubt or dispute that for the same cause of action complaint petition under terms of Section 138 of the Act would also be maintainable referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.Purushotama Reddy V/s K.Sateesh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 505 wherein held that complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act would be maintainable, not withstanding recovery proceedings initiated by institution of a Civil suit, though both brings 19 from the same cause of action and dismissal of the suit not come in the way of filing of 138 proceedings. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court has to analyze the material on record and point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused in C.C.No.36276/2010 and First Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court in Crl.A.No.719/2014 and whether it requires interference of this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction in Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015? 2) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused in C.C.No.10144/2010 and First Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court in Crl.A.No.720/2014 and whether it requires 20 interference of this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction in Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015? 3) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused in C.C.No.17270/2010 and First Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court in Crl.A.No.823/2016 and whether it requires interference of this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction in Crl.R.P.No.327/2019? 4) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused in C.C.No.20630/2010 and First Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court in Crl.A.No.822/2016 and whether it requires interference of this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction in Crl.R.P.No.328/2019? 5) What Order? 21 POINT NO:1 16. The very case of the complainant in Crl.R.P.No.1301/2015 before the Trial Court while considering C.C.No.36276/2010 wherein complainant Smt.G.Mahantamma and accused N.S.Rangappa, the specific case of the complainant that the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for personal needs and in order to repay the amount he had issued the Cheque which is the subject matter dated 20.02.2010 and the said Cheque was dishonored and returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient fund’ bank memo dated 26.02.2010. The legal notice was issued, but the accused failed to re-pay the amount and hence complaint was filed. The Trial Court taken the cognizance and accused was secured and did not plead guilty and claims trial and hence, complainant examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and accused was also 22 subjected to 313 statement and he also examined himself as DW1 and also examined DW2 as one of the witness. 17. Having considered the grounds urged by the revision petitioner that suit was dismissed is not in dispute. The respondent/complainant also not disputes the same, but, the fact is that issuance of Cheque Ex.P1 is not in dispute and also got marked the documents apart from the document of Cheque Ex.P1. The main defense of the accused that there was a chit transaction and Cheque was issued towards the chit transaction and the same was denied, but very claim of the complainant that Cheque was filled up by the accused only and admits that at the first instance Cheque was given with signature and thereafter on 06.11.2009 the accused himself filled up the same, but it is the suggestion that Cheque was given as security in respect of chit transaction and the same was denied. However, admits that in Ex.P10 there is a correction. Though suggestion was made for having paid an amount of 23 Rs.7,50,000/-, initiated separate cases and not produced any documents for having made the payment of Rs.7,50,000/- but he says that he can produce the same and produced the evidence before the Court. Having perused the Ex.P10, no doubt there is a correction and the same is towards the loan transaction and having made the payment the accused also signed the document and not disputed the document at Ex.P10 and also Ex.P11 is produced for having furnished the sale deed in support of the said transaction. 18. It is also important to note that when the DW1 was examined, he re-iterates that Cheque was given towards the chit transaction but admits the signature of Ex.P1(a) and also admits the registration of another case against him and so also registration of case against his wife. He categorically admits that he gave the document that he is having property at Bangalore and clear admission with regard to the same, but claims that the same was 24 given as security towards chit transaction. No doubt the witness DW1 was also examined DW2 and he claims that he is one of the subscriber of the Chit, but in the cross- examination he categorically admits that he is the subscriber for a chit amount of Rs.2,70,000/- but accused claims that he is the subscriber for an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- and both are contradictory evidence of DW1 and DW2. He also claims that he also gave Cheques towards the security, but no cases are filed against him, but he says that he used to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- as installment but no document is placed to show that he is a subscriber of the chit and no material is placed. Hence, the Trial Court did not accept the evidence of DW2. 19. Having considered the document of Ex.P1 as well as Ex.P10 loan agreement document and also Ex.P11 sale deed given as security and apart from that though it was the defense of the accused that it was only a chit transaction, both the Trial Court as well as the First 25 Appellate Court not accepted the case of the accused and reasons also given that there are contradictions in the claim of DW1 and DW2 to the subscriber of the Chit as Rs.2,20,000/- DW1 deposes and DW2 deposes Rs.2,70,000/- and material contradictions is also taken note of in paragraph No.14 of the judgment and also when the contention was taken Cheque was given towards the chit transaction and relied upon Ex.D1 chit card and also contended that Ex.D1 chit card was issued by the complainant, but complainant specifically denied the same that the same was created and it does not bears the signature and ought to have sent the document to the hand writing expert and the same was not sent for having made the payment of Rs.6,000/- by way of Cheque and no document is placed for having paid an amount of Rs.6,000/- as installment for Cheque amount every month and no such document is placed and hence, not accepted the case of the accused. On the other hand, accepted the 26 case of the complainant since complainant has produced voluminous document to substantiate his contention. Hence, I answer Point No.1 as ‘Negative’. POINT No.2: 20. In respect of the finding in C.C.No.10144/2010 (Crl.R.P.No.1300/2015) wherein the claim of the complainant is also that accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and issued the Cheque dated 06.11.2009 and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient fund’ and notice was issued and no compliance and hence filed the complaint. The Trial Court taken the cognizance after filing of the complaint and complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and got marked document Ex.P1 to Ex.P27 since he claims the trial and accused was subjected to 313 statement. The complainant mainly relies upon the Cheque Ex.P1 and signature of the accused as Ex.P1(a) and challan, endorsement and copy of legal notice, RPAD receipts, UCP receipts and returned 27 RPAD covers and four reply notices as Ex.P16 to Ex.P19 and postal acknowledgment as Ex.P20 since there was a service of notice, original loan agreement dated 10.03.2007 which is marked as Ex.P22 and copy of sale deed Ex.P23 and letter of voluntary retirement as Ex.P24 and certified copy of income tax returns as Ex.P25 to Ex.P27. In this case also similar evidence was adduced by the accused as DW1 and also relied upon Ex.D1 stating that he was the member of the chit fund and Ex.D1 is membership card and monthly payment was paid and same was disputed. The Trial Court taken note of the fact that in the said membership card, the address of the accused mentioned as N.S.Rangappa, No.6, 26th cross, Bagalagunte, Bangalore. The accused himself produced Ex.D1- Chit fund card and that card was issued by the complainant and the address mentioned in the chit fund card and address mentioned in the legal notice are one and the same and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court and also the fact that notice was sent under UCP. 28 21. It is also important to note that the suggestion was made that chit fund subscribers money was paid through Cheques and also Trial Court taken note of the fact that once the amount was paid through Cheque, question of payment shown in Ex.D1 does not arise and also taken note of contra evidence of DW1 and DW2 having subscribed the chit for Rs.2,20,000/- and Rs.2,70,000/- and Ex.P22 is the loan agreement which is not in dispute and similar document is marked in other cases also. Having re- assessed the material available on record, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note of transaction between both of them and though relies upon Ex.D1 and the same was not proved since the complainant disputed the same. Apart from that no proper explanation with regard to copy of the sale deed dated 01.01.2004 which was given and apart from that in the cross examination DW1 categorically admits that he is an habitual offender and a case is filed against him by one Karigowda 29 and the said case is also pending before the very same Court and also he admits pending of 2 cases against his wife. Further he categorically admits that Ex.D1 himself got printed the same was produced before the Court and this admission takes away the case of the revision petitioner. 22. It is also important to note that he categorically admits that Ex.D1 was given in order to clear the loan amount as mentioned in Ex.P22 that is the loan document. Though examined DW2 and his evidence is not helpful to prove the same as chit transaction since categorical admission was given by DW1 that Cheque was given towards Ex.P22 loan document and hence contention that it was given towards the Cheque cannot be accepted. 23. Having perused both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also the material available on record and though revision petition scope is very limited, this Court only for the limited purpose examined the material on record for any perversity is found in the finding 30 of Trial Court and this Court does not find any such perversity and the same is based on material on record. Hence, I answer the Point No.2 as ‘Negative’. Point Nos. 3 and 4 24. Both revision petitions are considered together since complainant and accused are one and the same and factual aspects are also similar and the evidence of the complainant as well as the accused are similar and hence, taken up together for consideration. 25. In Crl.R.P.No.327/2019, the complainant has contended that accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and in discharge of legal enforceable debt issued the Cheque dated 21.01.2010 and when the same was presented, returned with an endorsement “Funds insufficient” and notice was given and no compliance and hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and complainant in order to prove her case since the accused claims the trial, examined herself as PW1 and got marked 31 Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The accused examined herself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 and she was also subjected to cross examination and also examined her husband as DW2. Having considered the evidence of these witnesses and also material available on record, this Court with the limited scope of revision is concerned, consider the material available on record. 26. In other Crl.R.P.No.328/2019, it is the case of the complainant that accused Smt.Kavitha had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and accused fail to discharge the loan amount and when the Cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’ and Court has taken cognizance and accused did not plead guilty and hence, the complainant on her behalf examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The accused also examined herself as DW1 and examined her husband as DW2 and similar set of defense was taken and taken the evidence together for consideration. 32 27. The PW1 complainant re-iterated the complaint averment in her evidence in both the cases and relies upon the documentary evidence apart from the evidence and suggestion was made that husband of the accused was subscriber of the chit and hence, her husband given her Cheque to the complainant and the same was denied. It is also suggested that sale deed also obtained as security and the same was denied. On the other hand, when the accused herself examined as DW1, when the suggestion was made to her that having received the amount in terms of Ex.P12 and the same was denied saying that not obtained any amount and also suggestion was made that her bank statement not produced with an intention to avoid the payment and the same was denied, however, she admits the signature in Ex.P1 and Ex.P1(a) is signature and also admits that she is a graduate. Though she claims that she has given the Cheque to her husband but she cannot say on what date the Cheque was given, but she claims that with 33 regard to the chit transaction as a security when her husband told her to give the Cheque and she has given the Cheque, but she does not remember in terms of Ex.D2, when the chit transaction was taken place and also not aware of where the chit transaction was conducted. However, she claims that signature found in Ex.D2 is of complainant and she came to know that those signatures are complainant through her husband. It is suggested that Ex.D2 created and produced and the same was denied. When the suggestion was made that one Devamma also initiated criminal case against her, but denies not aware of the same and also suggestion was made that case was registered against her husband in P.C.R.No.115/2010 by said Devappa and the same also denies. Having taken note of evidence available on record, it is very clear payment was made through bank transaction. The complainant relies upon the document Ex.P12 and material also discloses that the suggestion was made that she did not produce her pass 34 book, but she denies the same and the fact that she is a graduate is not in dispute and also she did not denies the signature available in Ex.P1, but only contention that she gave the Cheque to her husband in connection with chit transaction and in respect of chit transaction is concerned, the revision petitioner also examined her husband as DW2 and in the cross-examination he categorically admits that the amount was transferred to the account of his wife, but claims that it was chit amount and even though the accused denies having transferred the amount to her account, but her husband categorically admitted. In order to prove the chit transaction is concerned, since both husband and wife takes the contention there was a chit transaction and relies upon Ex.D2 and in order to prove that the signature found on Ex.P2 is of complainant, nothing is placed on record and the same is not sent to the FSL or for scientific evidence or to prove that the amount was received by the complainant in respect of chit transaction and in the absence of any 35 material to show that there was a chit transaction, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the defense that there was a chit transaction, nothing is placed on record and also complainant categorically denied the signature alleged signed by him in Ex.D2 and the same was not proved by getting any report and the same has been observed by the Trial Court and also the appellate Court. Both the Courts have applied their judicial mind while appreciating the material on record and the defense which was taken that Cheque was given to her husband in connection with chit transaction is concerned has not been proved and defense remains as defense and mere production of document Ex.D2 is not helpful to the accused/revision petitioner to show that the same is a chit transaction and the said document also not confronted to the complainant and nothing is elicited that signature was found on the Ex.D2 which belongs to the complainant and when such being the case, the scope of revision is very 36 limited and only this Court has to examine any perversity in finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the same was found that the finding was on merits and material available on record. Under these circumstances, question of interfering and exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. The contention of the revision petitioners in respective cases that both Courts have committed an error cannot be accepted. Hence, the Point Nos.3 and 4 answered as ‘Negative’. 28. In view of discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE RHS