- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 302 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SMT MEENA K V W/O K.R.VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.32, 6TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, S.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMUEL S DANDIN, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S MANAPPURAM CHITS (K) PVT LTD NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, SRS COMPLEX, KHM BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT LEGAL MANAGER SRI RAMESH D.K. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.408/2018 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 DATED 02.08.2018 PASSED BY XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XVIII A.C.M.M., AT MACT BENGALURU (SCCH-22) AND BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID CASE AND ETC. THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1787/2018 by LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2018 passed in C.C.No.408/2018 by XX Additional Small Causes Judge and XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & MACT, Bengaluru convicting the petitioner-accused for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/- and in default to undergo further - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 simple imprisonment for a period of another two months came to be affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 3. The case of the respondent-complainant before the trial Court was that, the respondent-complainant is a reputed Chit Company registered under Companies Act, 1956 and it is having business of promoting and conducting chits as per the provisions of Chit Funds Act, 1982 for more than six years and it is the part of Manappuram group of Companies. 4. The petitioner-accused had subscribed for a chit bearing No.RTN001FA-08 in the respondent-complainant company for a chit value of Rs.40,00,000/- payable at Rs.1,00,000/- per month for a period of forty(40) months at R.T. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru which was promoted by the company after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. The petitioner-accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 participated in the chit auction and she was declared as a prize bidder in the said auction draw and she received a prize money of Rs.28,00,000/- after deducting the bid amount on 19.12.2014. 5. The petitioner-accused along with other guarantors executed on demand promissory note, surety form, guarantee bond and other relevant documents in favour of the company for the amount received. After receiving the prize amount, the petitioner-accused was not regular in payment of chit installments and after paying 27 installments, she became defaulter. 6. The complainant company issued legal notice. Thereafter, the respondent-complainant raised a dispute before Deputy Registrar of Chits at Bangalore in Dispute No.108/2016-17 for recovery of balance amount of Rs.15,11,792/-. Subsequently, the petitioner-accused came to complainant company office and paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and requested to settle the said dispute. The nominee of Deputy Registrar of Chits at Bangalore has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 passed the award and directed the petitioner-accused and other guarantors to pay an amount of Rs.11,33,688/- and Court cost with interest. 7. After issuing the recovery certificate, the complainant company has filed Execution Petition No.2812/2017 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. After filing the said petition, the Court issued the cause notice to the petitioner-accused and other guarantors. At that time, the petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing No.000084 for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- dated 28.11.2017 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bangalore as a part amount in Ex.No.2812/2017 in favour of the complainant company and requested not to proceed the said Execution Petition. 8. The complainant company presented the said cheque for encashment on 30.11.2017 and it came to be dishonored with reason 'funds insufficient' under Bank memo dated 01.12.2017. The complainant got issued demand notice on 07.12.2017 and said notice has been - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 served on the petitioner-accused on 08.12.2017. Inspite of service of the said notice, the petitioner-accused had not paid the cheque amount within 15 days. Therefore, the respondent-complainant had initiated proceedings against the petitioner-accused for the office under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. The respondent-complainant got examined one witness as PW1 and got marked as Ex.P1 to P13. The petitioner-accused had not chosen to cross-examine PW1 and not led any defense evidence. 10. The trial Court after hearing argument and appreciating the evidence on record convicted the petitioner-accused for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/- with a default sentence. 11. The petitioner-accused challenging the said judgment and filed Criminal Appeal No.1787/2018 before - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the said appeal on merits affirming the judgment of the trial Court. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the petitioner has not given sufficient opportunity for cross-examination of PW1 and there are discrepancies in the documents produced by the respondent-complainant before the trial Court. The documents produced does not show what is the amount due by the petitioner-accused. Without considering these aspects, Learned Magistrate erred in convicting the petitioner and appellate Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence on record and affirmed the conviction. 13. Learned counsel for respondent supports the reasons assigned by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and prays for dismissal of this revision petition. 14. Having heard learned counsels, this Court perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 15. It is a specific case of the respondent- complainant that cheque-Ex.P3 has been issued for making payment of amount claiming Execution Petition No.2812/2017. The said execution case has been filed by the respondent-complainant based on the award passed by the nominee of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Bangalore. Wherein, the amount due by the petitioner- accused was Rs.11,33,688/- and interest thereon and Court cost. The cheque issued by petitioner-accused has been dishonored for reasons 'funds insufficient' in her bank account. There is no cross-examination of PW1 by the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the issuance of cheque- Ex.P3 as stated by the respondent-complainant and evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, the presumption arises under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act that cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The said presumption drawn under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 rebutting the said presumption is that of preponderance of probability. 16. Inspite of service of legal notice - Ex.P5, as per Exs.P8 and P9 - postal acknowledgments, the petitioner- accused has not chosen to issue any reply putting forth her defense. 17. Considering the same, the presumption drawn under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act remains unrebutted. Consequences of non-rebutting the said presumption drawn under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh1 has held as under; “55. As rightly contended by the appellant, there is a fundamental flaw in the way both the Courts below have proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record. Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the 1 reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 807 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly.” 18. Apart from that, the respondent-complainant has produced documents to prove the liability of the petitioner-accused to pay the cheque amount. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 19. On perusal of the ordersheet of the trial Court indicate that, after chief examination of PW1, the case came to posted for cross-examination on 27.06.2018, 30.06.2018 and 05.07.2018. Inspite of granting three opportunities, the petitioner-accused has not chosen to cross-examine PW1. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that, the petitioner has not been given opportunity to cross-examine PW1 is not acceptable. 20. Considering all these aspects, learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the petitioner-accused for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and appellate Court rightly re-appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly affirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not choose to argue on the sentence as imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26952 CRL.RP No. 302 of 2020 22. Considering all these aspects, there is no ground to allow this revision petition. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7