- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29915 CRL.RP No. 1414 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1414 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI MOHAN M, S/O MURGUESAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.586, SCHOOL ROAD, OPP. DR.AMBEDKAR SAMUDAYA BHAVAN, KUVEMPUNAGAR, 2ND STAGE JALAHALLI (E), BENGALURU-560 014. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KEMPE GOWDA C M, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT G SHEELA, W/O GNANVELU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.79-A, 7TH CROSS H M NAIK ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR 2ND STAGE, JALAHALLI (E), BENGALURU-560 014. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29915 CRL.RP No. 1414 of 2018 ORAL ORDER This Petition is arising from the concurrent finding in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). The cheque said to have been issued by the petitioner, for a sum of Rs.95,000/- is dishonoured. Thus, the complainant lodged a complaint after fulfilling the requirement under Section 138 of NI Act. 2. The cheque, notice are placed before the Trial Court. The complainant had taken a contention that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The accused took a defense that the transaction pertains to chit fund transaction and the amount is repaid and there is no legally enforceable debt as on the date of issuance of the cheque. It is the defence of the accused that the cheque issued as a security for chit fund transaction is misused by the complainant. 3. Before the Trial Court, the accused led evidence and he has produced the cheque book containing counterfoil and pocket dairy maintained by the accused. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29915 CRL.RP No. 1414 of 2018 4. The Trial Court did not accept the defence of the repayment of debt. Accused took a stand that the entries in the pocket dairy are in the handwriting of the complainant. Said contention is not established. The pocket dairy does not bear the signature of the complainant. Thus, the Trial Court concluded that there is no rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. 5. The First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. Hence, the present Revision Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the defense raised by the accused relating to the repayment of the amount pertaining to a chit fund transaction though established is not accepted by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It is his submission that the dairy maintained by the petitioner / accused in the normal course of his daily activity containing entries relating to repayment of the amount due to the complainant is not considered in a proper perspective and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29915 CRL.RP No. 1414 of 2018 7. It is urged that the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act is duly rebutted and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to take into consideration this aspect. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. From the defence raised by the petitioner / accused, it is to be noticed that the accused has raised a contention that he has repaid the amount. In other words, the transaction is admitted. Thus, the burden is on the accused to establish that he has repaid the amount. To substantiate his contention that he has repaid the amount, accused relies on Ex.D1 – the cheque book of the accused and also on Ex.D2 the pocket dairy. The said cheque book would indicate that two cheques were issued, one cheque for the complainant and another for her husband. 10. It is noticed from the record that the case filed by the complainant’s husband has ended in acquittal. Since the accused has admitted the transaction and has raised a contention relating to repayment, the question is whether the repayment is established. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29915 CRL.RP No. 1414 of 2018 11. The only document that is produced to establish the said contention of repayment is the pocket dairy. Admittedly, pocket dairy does not bare the signature of the complainant. It is also not proved to be in the handwriting of the complainant as alleged. No such evidence is placed to hold that the entries in the pocket dairy are in the handwriting of the complainant. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. 14. The amount in deposit if any, shall be released in favour of the complainant. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27