- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1290 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MRS DEEPA AGED 36 YEARS W/O VISHWANATH, R/AT PRATHVI NIVASA, NEAR PUNARURU TEMPLE TALIPADY VILLAGE, KINNIGOLI MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT- 574150 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. RAJALAXMI AGED 44 YEARS W/O RAMACHANDRA UDUPA R/AT 1-353/1, UDUPA HOUSE, MOODUSHEDDE, THRIRUVAIL VAMANJOOR, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT- 575028 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.08.2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 154/2025 ON THE FILE OF III Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT D.K.. MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED IN C.C. NO. 115/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C. IX COURT MANGALURU, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2025 passed by JMFC IX Court, Mangaluru, D.K., in C.C.no.115/2022 and confirmed in judgment dated 02.08.2025 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.no.154/2025, this Revision Petition is filed. 2. Sri S.Rajashekar, learned counsel for petitioner - accused submitted that Revision Petition was filed against concurrent erroneous findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025 1881 (N.I. ACT). It was submitted that respondent - complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from complainant on different dates in month of September and November 2021 in cash as accused was facing shortage of funds for completion of construction. It was assured by accused that loan amount would be returned within six months with interest at rate of 1% per month and a promissory note was also executed in favour of complainant. Thereafter further sum of Rs.64,400/- was borrowed at time of house warming ceremony in January 2022 promising that said amount would be repaid within two months. On failure to make repayment, when complainant approached accused, he had issued cheque bearing no.000002 dated 29.08.2022 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bajpe Branch, Mangalore for Rs.8,86,400/- in favour of complainant, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' on 29.08.2022 and thereafter complainant had got issued a demand notice dated 07.09.2022, which was served on accused on 08.09.2022, accused had failed to make repayment or reply - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025 to notice, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. It was submitted that on appearance accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Thereafter incriminating material was explained to accused which was denied as false. Thus, her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter accused got examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D13. 4. It was submitted despite accused having established substantial defence, both Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court without proper consideration had proceeded to convict accused. It was submitted impugned judgments suffered from perversity and called for interference. 5. It was firstly submitted, complainant had failed to disclose particulars of amounts lent to accused, such as dates on which money was lent, in demand notice. This could cast grave doubt about lending money. It was submitted that complainant had improvised by adopting dates mentioned by accused in reply notice. It was further submitted that accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025 had repaid amount and was due only Rs.1,00,000/-. However, Trial Court had passed order convicting accused and directing him to pay fine amount of Rs.8,86,400/-, which was contrary to record and calls for interference. 6. It was submitted there was also difference between amount for which promissory note was executed and demand notice. This would cast grave doubt about complainant's version and would be sufficient to upset presumption. On above grounds, sought for interference. 7. Sri Ajay M.Prabhu, learned counsel for respondent - complainant opposed Revision Petition. 8. It was submitted both Courts had examined entire material on record and passed a well reasoned findings and there would be no scope for interference in Revision Petition. It was submitted that though there was difference in amount in Ex.P7- Promissory Note and demand notice at Ex.P3, there was sufficient explanation for same, as accused had borrowed further sum of Rs.64,400/- at time of house warming ceremony and same was included at time of issuance of Ex.P1 - cheque. It was further submitted in Ex.P3 - demand notice, complainant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025 had stated that borrowal was in months of September to November, 2021, total amount borrowed was stated. In Ex.D3, reply notice, accused had clearly acknowledged receipt of money by mentioning dates on which it was paid. Thus, accused could not take advantage of non-disclosure and same would not be material omission to upset presumption available to complainant. 9. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused certified copies of deposition and exhibits made available for perusal by respondent - complainant. 10. This Revision Petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Challenge is on ground that findings are perverse. Insofar as first contention about failure to mention date and other particulars of lending money in Ex.P3 notice, it is seen said notice was replied to by accused by issuing Ex.D3. In Ex.D3, accused clearly mentioned dates on which money was paid. Total of same would match amount claimed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025 11. In view of above, there would be no substance in disputing borrowal of money. Though specific contention is taken that accused had repaid loan amount and was due only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, it is seen that there is no material to substantiate said claim, despite accused having entered witness box and led evidence and produced documents. While passing impugned judgment Trial Court has observed that there is admission of issuance of cheque and signature on cheque and its handing over to complainant. There is admission about loan borrowal. Ex.P1-cheque is in name of complainant and amount mentioned on cheque matches total of money lent to accused. This would justify extension of presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act in favour of complainant. Both Courts by extending such presumption and arriving at a conclusion that accused had failed to upset presumption proceeded to pass orders of conviction. Same would be fully in accordance with law and no grounds of perversity is established. Revision Petition is without merit and stands dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025 12. In view of dismissal of Revision Petition, in case any amount is deposited by petitioner - accused, respondent - complainant would be at liberty to withdraw same. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16