- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16021 CRL.RP No. 1461 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1461 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SMT. LATHA W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, JANATA COLONY, MUTTINAKOPPA VILLAGE AND POST, N.R PURA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PIN-577 134. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAVEED S, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: SRI. ELDOSE M.B S/O BABY M.V, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND TRACTOR DRIVER, BHADRA COLONY, MUTTINAKOPPA VILLAGE AND POST, N.R PURA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PIN-577 134. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., N.R.PURA IN C.C.NO.525/2015 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2019 PASSED BY Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16021 CRL.RP No. 1461 of 2019 THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.52/2019, WHERE THE APPELLANT COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CONVICTION. 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 revision petitioner/accused has assailed the judgment dated 05.10.2019 passed by the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.52/2019, wherein the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in C.C.No.525/2015 dated 30.01.2019. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The accused is well acquainted with the complainant. During the first week of May, 2015, the accused approached - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16021 CRL.RP No. 1461 of 2019 the complainant and obtained a hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same within two months. However, he reneged to repay the same and thereafter issued a cheque bearing No.734842 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Muttinakoppa Branch dated 18.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. When the complainant presented the said cheque, it was returned with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds'. The same was intimated to the accused by the complainant by issuing a legal notice dated 27.08.2015. The said notice was duly served to the accused. Despite, the accused neither replied to the notice nor repaid the hand loan. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act') before the Trial court. 4. In order to prove the case before the Trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The accused also examined herself as DW.1 and marked 1 document as Ex.D1. 5. On assessing oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16021 CRL.RP No. 1461 of 2019 "ORDER Acting U/Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Accused is sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.1,57,000/- for an offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, out of which Rs. 2000/- shall go to state as penalty and the remaining amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/Sec. 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine amount she shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The bail bonds of the accused and surety bond stands cancelled." 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused approached the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.52/2019. The First Appellate Court after re-assessment of the entire evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard Sri. Javeed S., the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner and Sri. Pradeep Naik K., learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The primary contention of the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner/accused is that the Trial Court - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16021 CRL.RP No. 1461 of 2019 and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused without appreciating the defence advanced by the accused that, the cheque-Ex.P1 in question was issued by the accused to the father of the complainant with respect to chit transaction, the same was misused by the complainant for unlawful gain. He further contended that the complainant also failed to prove the lending capacity of Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on meticulously examining the entire evidence on record passed well-reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference by this Court. He further contended that, even after the legal notice being served, the accused failed to reply the same and the defence advanced by the accused is not a probable one to rebut initial presumption. He also contended that in the cross- examination of the accused, she categorically admitted that the chit business was run by her; further, she did not receive any cheque as security, on the contrary she issued cheque[s] on her own accord as security to the chit bidders. The accused had not seriously disputed the signature on Ex.P1-cheque. In such - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16021 CRL.RP No. 1461 of 2019 circumstances, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the sole point that arises for my considered is: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.525/2015?" 11. As could be gathered from records, the cheque in question and the signature of the accused on cheque-Ex.P1 is undisputed. The defence advanced by the accused is that, the cheque-Ex.P1 was issued to the father of the complainant in respect of chit transaction. Further, in the cross-examination of the accused, she has categorically admitted that she was running the chit transaction and she herself issued cheques to the chit bidders. Nevertheless, she failed to examine any witness to prove her defence. In such circumstances, no doubt initial presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttal one. Nevertheless, it is a settled position of law that such initial presumption can be rebutted exclusively by placing probable defence. In the instant case, the accused failed to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16021 CRL.RP No. 1461 of 2019 rebut the initial presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act by placing probable defence. Against this backdrop, I find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. ii) The KSLA/Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as honorary to the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri. Javeed S., for assisting the Court in this revision petition. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24