- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38472 CRL.RP No. 1391 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1391 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. V VARALAKSHMI W/O NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.51, NVS NAIDU LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOHAR V, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI S.R. ACHARYA S/O LATE KRISHNACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, 9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 029. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 18.08.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.1418/2024 PASSED BY THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-63) AND THE ORDER DTD 30.07.2024 PASSED BY THE XIII ACJM, AT BANGALORE IN CC.NO.24802/2019 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38472 CRL.RP No. 1391 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition is against concurrent finding in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act'). 3. The petitioner-accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,60,000/- within one month from the date of the judgment and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount of Rs.1,60,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid to the State towards the expenses. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court is also dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the transaction is not established and evidence lead before - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38472 CRL.RP No. 1391 of 2025 the trial Court is not properly appreciated by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and both Courts erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not established her defence. It is his submission that the admission in the cross- examinations have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. It is urged that the respondent- complainant did not lend the amount and except the cheque, there is no other documents to establish the contention relating to loan transaction. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. The complainant has issued a notice to the accused before initiating the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The said notice is returned to the complainant with an endorsement ‘door lock and unclaimed’. The accused has not replied to the notice issued under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The respondent-complainant led evidence and produced the cheque, notice, postal acknowledgement as well as bank endorsement. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38472 CRL.RP No. 1391 of 2025 8. The petitioner has cross-examined the complainant and tried to urge the contention that notice under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is not served on the petitioner. Petitioner has also tried to raise contention that the complainant did not have Rs.1,50,000/- in the month of May-2019 to lend money to the petitioner. In the cross-examination, nothing is elicited to rebut the presumption arising from Section 139 of the N.I.Act. 9. The accused has not lead any independent evidence on her behalf. The trial Court has placed reliance on Section 139 of the N.I.Act to hold that the presumption is in favour of the complainant/drawee that the cheque is issued towards the discharge of the debt. The trial Court has also placed reliance on Section 118 of the N.I.Act. 10. There is no dispute that the cheque, which is dishonored is the cheque belonged to the petitioner. The signature on the cheque is also not disputed. The Court has noticed that the notice issued under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, returned with endorsement ‘door lock/unclaimed’. There is no dispute that the notice is sent to the address where petitioner is residing. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38472 CRL.RP No. 1391 of 2025 11. This being the position, the contention that the notice is not properly served on the petitioner has to be rejected and same is rejected. 12. In the cross-examination, the accused has tried to bring on the fact that the complainant had filed two more cases against two persons namely Smt. Girija Dixith and Smt. Sudha. Merely because those persons are convicted, the Court cannot hold that the petitioner has to be acquitted as no link is established between those two cases and the present case. 13. First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence on record, again concurred with the finding of the trial Court. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, does not find any reason to interfere with the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 14. It is also noticed that the cheque was issued for Rs.1,50,000/- and the same was issued in the year 2019. The trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused in terms of judgment dated 30.07.2024. By the time judgment was delivered, almost five years have lapsed since the date of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38472 CRL.RP No. 1391 of 2025 issuance of cheque, the trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs.1,60,000/- i.e., Rs.10,000/- more than the cheque amount and Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid towards the expenditure of the State and appeal is dismissed on 18.08.2025. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the fine amount imposed by the trial Court. 15. It is also noticed that the trial Court has granted one month time to the petitioner to pay the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not keeping well and she is not in a position to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,28,000/- immediately and he seeks six months time to pay the said amount. Since it is submitted that the petitioner is not keeping well, four months time is granted from today to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,28,000/- and same shall be deposited before the trial Court within four months from today. 16. The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the complainant/respondent in case if it is not yet released. The amount to be deposited shall also be released in favour of the complainant/respondent. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38472 CRL.RP No. 1391 of 2025 17. It is also made clear that since this order is passed extending time to deposit from one month to four months, without issuing notice to the respondent, liberty is reserved to the complainant/respondent to move this matter for modification of the order. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part. (b) The judgment dated 30.07.2024 in C.C.No.24802/2019 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru and Judgment dated 18.08.2025 in Crl.A.No.1418/2024 on the file of the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63) Bengaluru, insofar as conviction and sentence are confirmed, the petitioner is given four months time from today to pay the balance amount. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14