- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52001 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 152 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMI M WIFE OF PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.34 AND 35, 10TH MAIN ROAD, ST. ANTHONY LAYOUT, MARIYANNAPALYA, COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, OPP. TO JIO POINT PROVISION STORE BENGALURU-560 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH MADHAVA S., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. B. CHANDRAKALA GIRIYAPPA, WIFE OF M. GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, 9TH CROSS, PAMPA EXTENSION, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BENGALURU-560 024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AMARESH N., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.833/2020 DATED 04.12.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN C.C.NO.2477/2018 DATED 02.11.2020 PASSED BY XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52001 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2024 THIS REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 04.12.2023 passed by LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, in Crl.A.no.833/2020 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.11.2020 passed by XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.2477/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Vasanth Madhava S, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, present proceedings was initiated on a complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused was running chit business since several years and complainant was a subscriber. Besides that accused was well known to complainant and borrowed sum of Rs.9 Lakhs in December, 2014 to meet her urgent needs and to repay some subscribers' chit amount etc. At time of lending, accused had executed receipt for Rs.9 Lakhs on 30.12.2014, agreeing to repay it within reasonable time. But, when accused failed to return - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52001 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2024 money and when complainant demanded repayment, accused had issued three post-dated cheques no.454957, 363163 and 440569 dated 15.10.2016, 25.10.2016 and 30.11.2016 for Rs.4 Lakhs, Rs.2 Lakhs and Rs.1 Lakh respectively drawn on Corporation Bank, Coffee Board Layout Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented returned dishonoured with endorsements 'Funds Insufficient' on 02.12.2016 and thereafter even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 16.12.2016 was served, accused failed to repay amount within time stipulated, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial, whereupon complainant entered witness box as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 18. On being explained incriminating material which were denied, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, accused entered witness box as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1. It was submitted, accused had denied and disputed transaction of lending. Even though, complainant had stated that amount lent was Rs.9 Lakhs, in examination-in-chief, she stated amount lent was Rs.4 Lakhs, Rs.2 Lakhs and Rs.1 Lakh, in all Rs.7 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52001 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2024 Lakhs. It was submitted, without proper appreciation of same, trial Court had proceeded to pass impugned judgment of conviction and directed accused to pay fine of Rs.10,20,000/-, which would be contrary to law and material on record. It was submitted, appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re-appreciation. Therefore, impugned judgments of conviction suffer from perversity and sought for allowing petition. 4. On other hand, Sri Amaresh N., learned counsel for respondent opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts concurrently held against accused and there would be no scope for interference in revision. It was submitted, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court had observed that accused had admitted his signatures on Exs.P1 to P3 - cheques and about cheques belonging to him. It also noted that accused did not remember date of closure of chit and she had no records about chit transactions of complainant's husband, which led to trial Court disbelieving accused. It further noted, accused had stated that only one cheque was issued to complainant's husband in chit transaction and there was no explanation for other two cheques. On said reasoning, trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52001 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2024 Court disbelieved explanation of accused and proceeded to pass order of conviction. It was submitted, Appellate Court took note of conduct on part of accused in not having issued 'stop payment' instructions to her banker, if according to her, cheques issued to complainant's husband towards chit transactions were being misused. For said reasons, order of conviction passed against accused was justified and sought for dismissal. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and record. 6. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting her for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Grounds of challenge are, perversity as there was inconsistency between amount due and amount for which cheques were issued and amount claimed. Said contention is primarily addressed by referring to deposition of PW.1, wherein she stated that amount of Rs.9 Lakhs was not paid in one go, but in parts of Rs.4 Lakhs, Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.2 Lakhs and stated that she did not remember specific date of lending. Total of amounts stated to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52001 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2024 have been lent would be Rs.7 Lakhs, whereas complainant claimed it to be Rs.9 Lakhs and there was no explanation for remaining amount. Even demand notice was issued for Rs.7 Lakhs, which would be different than amount due. 7. Perusal of complaint, demand notice and deposition of PW.1 would indicate that consistent stand of complainant was amount lent was Rs.9 Lakhs in cash and towards repayment, accused had issued three cheques for Rs.4 Lakhs, Rs.2 Lakhs and Rs.1 Lakh respectively as per Exs.P1 to P3. Indeed, total amount mentioned in Exs.P1, P2 and P3 would be Rs.7 Lakhs and said amount is claimed in Ex.P7 - demand notice. Though variation in amount in cheque and demand notice would be fatal and same would also hold true if amount mentioned in cheque and in demand were more than amount lent, but there would be no impediment, in case cheques were issued for lesser than amount due and if lower amount is demanded than due. 8. In instant case, though complainant stated that amount lent was Rs.9 Lakhs, petition was filed for dishonour of Exs.P1 to P3 by demanding Rs.7 Lakhs mentioned therein. In - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52001 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2024 fact, defence set up by accused was that cheques were issued towards chit transaction, but particulars of which she was not able to recall or substantiate. 9. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court and Appellate Court have appreciated entire material on record and noted that accused had admitted signatures on Exs.P1 to P3 - cheques and they belonged to her. This would attract presumption under Section 139 of NI Act in favour of complainant. For failure to recall particulars of chit transactions and explanation confined to only one cheque, findings of trial Court and Appellate Court that accused had failed to substantiate defence cannot be stated to be contrary to law. Consequently, no case of perversity is made out. Revision petition is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG & AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33