- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47361 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 766 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. REKHA D., W/O DHARMA S., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO 1781, 5TH CROSS, JANATHA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PANCHAM R D., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAVIKUMAR H., S/O HARALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RA/T NO 72, 5TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, BHOGADI, MYSORE - 570 026. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.17/2020 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (IV COURT) AT MYSURU IN C.C.NO.839/2017. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47361 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 07.03.2023 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.17/2020 confirming judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (IV Court) Mysuru, in C.C.no.839/2017, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Pancham RD, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted, petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting her for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.PC' for short) alleging that accused was known to complainant since several years and in March, 2016 had borrowed hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for domestic purposes, assuring to repay same within one year. At that time, she had issued post-dated cheques no.131148 dated 09.03.2017 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Nivedithanagara Branch, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47361 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2023 Mysuru, which when presented for collection returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 10.03.2017 and despite issuance of demand notice dated 21.03.2017 by RPAD, same returned as 'not claimed, returned to sender', and accused had failed to comply demand notice and repay amount, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. Thereafter accused was appraised of incriminating material which he denied and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. In rebuttal, accused examined herself and another as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D3. It was submitted, though accused had set up substantial defence firstly on ground that complaint was not preceded with duly served demand notice on accused and secondly on ground that cheque in question was issued as security for chit business and not towards legally enforceable debt, trial Court without proper consideration proceeded to convict accused. Even first appellate Court failed to re-appreciate material on record leading to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47361 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2023 concurrent erroneous judgments. It was submitted, since impugned judgments suffer from perversity, there were grounds to interfere in revision and sought for allowing petition. 4. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and record. 5. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Main ground of challenge is perversity of findings as well as infraction with statutory provision. Contention about non-service of notice is sought to be substantiated by producing Aadhaar card, Cooking gas passbook and receipt of gas cylinder purchase as Exs.D1 to 3. Address of accused mentioned in Exs.D1 to 3 is '#1781, 5th Cross, Maruti Tent Road, Janatha Nagar, Mysore, whereas, address in Ex.P3-demand notice is 'no.2104, 1st floor, 12th Cross, Maruti Tent Road, Janata nagar, Mysore'. 6. Accused deposed that address mentioned in Ex.D.1 to 3 was that of her mother-in-law. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court observed that accused was served with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47361 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2023 summons at "no.2104, 1st floor, 12th Cross, Maruti Tent Road, Janata nagar, Mysore," which is same as in demand notice, moreover, postal shara on Ex.P.3 is 'not claimed, returned to sender', and not of 'no such addressee'. Under above circumstances, finding of trial Court about due service of notice to accused would be on basis of material on record and cannot be stated to be without basis and perverse. 7. It is nextly contended that cheque in question was issued as security towards chit transaction subscribed to by accused. To a Court query, whether any other subscriber to chit was examined, counsel for petitioner answered in negative, but reference was made to deposition of DW2. In her deposition, DW.2 stated about accused subscribing chit conducted by complainant and issuance of cheque at time of subscription towards security. However, in cross-examination, it is elicited that she is a close friend of accused and denied other suggestions. Except said material, there is no other material to substantiate issuance of cheque was as security towards chit subscription amount. For failure to produce any such material, adverse inference has to be drawn. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47361 CRL.RP No. 766 of 2023 8. Apart from above contention, In fact, admission about issuance of cheque as security would justify admit signature of accused on cheque. This would jutify drawing of presumption in favour of complainant. Mere making suggestions and obtaining denials would not be sufficient to upset presumption. Thus, trial Court and first appellate Court have on independent assessment arrived at reasoned conclusions and accused failed to substantiate that findings suffer from perversity. Hence, I do not see any good grounds to interfere. Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg*:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55