- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51212 CRL.RP No. 698 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 698 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. PUSHPAVATHI, W/O MAHADEVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.3, A BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, NEAR MUTHUMARAMMA, TEMPLE, MAHADEVPURA, MANADAVADI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAVIKUMAR. S., S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KALAVADI VILLAGE, UDBUT HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 04.07.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C MYSURU IN C.C.NO.377/2017 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE III ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, MSYURU IN CRL.A.NO.201/2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51212 CRL.RP No. 698 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by III Additional Session Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.201/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2022 passed by IV Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mysuru, in C.C.no.377/2017, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri P. Mahesha, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that proceedings were initiated on a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) by respondent (complainant) alleging that accused had approached complainant and borrowed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for her legal necessities, agreed to repay it within short period and in that regard issued post dated cheque bearing no.273021 drawn on Canara Bank, Vivekanandanagar Branch, Mysuru, dated 20.10.2016, which when presented for payment on said date, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 24.10.2016 and thereafter even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 22.11.2016 through RPAD and Courier, RPAD acknowledgment returned with postal shara as 'Addressee not claimed' on 07.12.2016 and as such deemed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51212 CRL.RP No. 698 of 2023 served, accused failed to repay amount within time stipulated, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused disputed charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant deposed as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exhibits-P1 to P9. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which she denied and her statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Accused thereafter led defence evidence by examining herself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Exhibits-D1 to D9. 4. It was submitted, accused had setup substantial defence denying relationship of creditor and debtor and contending that cheque in question was issued to one Prema as security towards Chit contribution but, misused to file present case. Despite same, complainant had not produced any material other than cheque to substantiate transaction. However without appreciating same, based only on statutory presumption, trial Court as well as Appellate Court passed impugned judgments. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51212 CRL.RP No. 698 of 2023 5. Further, while passing impugned judgment, both Courts had referred to stray suggestion by accused in cross- examination of PW.1 that amount was not lent as loan to draw an inference that accused had admitted receipt of money from complainant. It was submitted, Appellate Court drew adverse inference by referring to postal shara on demand notice having returned 'not claimed' to conclude that reply notice were concocted would be contrary to material on record and therefore impugned judgments suffered from perversity. 6. Respondent is served and unrepresented. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments as well as certified copy of complaint, deposition and exhibits made available for perusal by learned counsel for petitioner. 8. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, on grounds of perversity. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court referred to pleadings and deposition of PW.1 about lending of money to accused, and accused issuing post dated cheque for repayment i.e. Exhibit- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51212 CRL.RP No. 698 of 2023 P1. Its presentation; dishonour; issuance of demand notice and failure to repay as substantiating foundational facts for complainant. 9. It noted, contention that cheque was issued to one Prema would admit accused's signature on cheque and since cheque bore name of accused, complainant would be entitled for presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Thereafter, it referred to defence setup denying financial capacity of complainant to pay amount and referring to complainant's statement that he had agricultural lands, substantiated by production of Exs.P7 to P9 - Record of Rights to conclude in favour of complainant. It noted other defence about transaction with Girish remained unsubstantiated on account of failure to examine said person as witness. On above reasoning, trial Court concluded that accused failed to upset presumption in favour of complainant and proceeded to pass order of conviction. 10. While passing impugned judgment, Appellate Court concurred with findings of trial Court. It held Exhibits-D8 and D9, reply notice and acknowledgment as concocted as postal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51212 CRL.RP No. 698 of 2023 shara on Exhibit-P3 - demand notice was 'addressee not claimed'. Though learned counsel for accused herein would be justified in contending that said conclusion would be contrary to material on record as demand notice was also sent by courier and was received, same would not lend any benefit to accused as only defence taken in Exhibit-D8 is about issuance of cheque to Prema and denying monetary transactions with accused. Said contention had been rightly rejected by both Courts drawing adverse inference for failure to examine said Prema. Moreover in deposition, accused took a contradictory stand that cheque was issued to Girish. 11. Under such circumstances, passing of impugned judgment convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, on basis of presumption by recording a finding that there was failure on part of accused to upset presumption would be in accordance with law and would not suffer from perversity. Hence, no reason to interfere. Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40