- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54285 CRL.RP No. 1914 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1914 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. L C BHAVANI, W/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.108, B-BLOCK, SHREE NAGAR, (J.P.NAGARA), MYSURU - 570 031. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJATH H V., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SUMALATHA J., W/O SRINIVASA N., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.99/1A, RAJENDRA NAGARA, 3RD CROSS, MYSURU - 570 007. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 11.09.2025, PASSED IN CC.NO.2777/2020 IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/S. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SENTENCING HIM PAY A FINE AMOUNT. B. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE, DATED 11.09.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.385/2024 AND ALSO ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE IN CC.NO.2777/2020 DATED 26.10.2024 AND ALLOW THIS PETITION BY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54285 CRL.RP No. 1914 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.385/2024 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2024 passed by IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.no.2777/2020, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Rajath H.V., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that present proceedings arise out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that complainant and accused were known to each other since several years and accused had borrowed sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for marriage of her daughter in month of September, 2016, agreeing to repay it within four months. Thereafter, though complainant had approached accused on several occasions and made demand, payment was not made and however a cheque bearing no.515040, drawn on State Bank of Mysore, N.R. Mohalla Branch, Mysuru for Rs.4,00,000/- was issued on 09.03.2017, when presented for collection on 16.03.2017, it returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54285 CRL.RP No. 1914 of 2025 insufficient' on 17.03.2017 and thereafter even when demand notice dated 30.03.2017 was duly served on accused, accused failed to repay amount within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought to be tried. Thereafter, complainant examined herself as PW-1 and another as PW-2 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P8. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and her statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused led defence evidence by examining herself as DW-1, but not marked any documents. 4. It was submitted, though accused had setup substantial defences and established same in cross-examination of PW-1 as well as in her deposition, trial Court failed to consider same. It was firstly submitted that accused had contended that cheque in question was stolen in year 2016 and misusing same present complaint was filed. It was submitted that there was no financial transaction between accused and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54285 CRL.RP No. 1914 of 2025 complainant and without producing any documents to establish transaction other than cheque in question, complaint was filed. It was further contented that complainant had also failed to establish her financial capacity to lend money. 5. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court had merely observed that Exhibits-P6 to P8 - Certificates established that complainant had completed tailoring and beautician courses which would establish source of income. However, Appellate Court had taken note of admission by complainant that her income from tailoring was Rs.5,000/- per month, it was sought to be contented that with meagre income of Rs.5,000/-, it would have been impossible, if not doubtful for complainant to have arranged money to pay to accused. 6. It was also submitted that as per complainant, entire payment was made in cash, there was no justification or explanation not to have paid it through cheque etc. Same would also cast doubt about transaction. Without considering said contention, trial Court proceeded to pass order of conviction. It was submitted, even Appellate Court passed impugned judgment without re-appreciation leading to this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54285 CRL.RP No. 1914 of 2025 revision petition. It was submitted that since judgments passed by both Courts suffered from perversity, prayed for allowing revision petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused impugned judgments. 8. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Grounds urged are perversity of findings firstly, insofar as existence of legally enforceable debt. It is contented that there was no transaction and complainant has failed to produce any material to substantiate lending. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court took note of contention in complaint, demand notice as well as deposition of complainant about lending of money to accused and accused in-turn issuing Ex.P5 - cheque towards repayment. 9. One of defences setup by accused was that cheque in question was stolen in year 2016, there is no material is produced to establish any complaint having been filed or an intimation having been given to Bank. Admittedly, cheque in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54285 CRL.RP No. 1914 of 2025 question as returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Therefore, said contention would not hold. 10. Insofar as challenge to financial capacity of complainant to lend, it is seen that despite service of demand notice, accused failed to reply to same. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, it is held when accused wants to dispute financial capacity, failure to issue reply to demand notice inference has to be drawn against accused. It is held, earliest point of time to setup defence of financial capacity would be in reply to demand notice. Since signature on cheque is admitted and cheque bears name of complainant, presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, would attract. Therefore, trial Court or Appellate Court cannot be found fault with for basing their findings of conviction on presumption. 11. Even insofar as contention about transaction in cash raising doubt, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari's case (supra), has observed contentions of violation of provisions of Income Tax Act, would not be sufficient to upset presumption. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54285 CRL.RP No. 1914 of 2025 Thus, none of grounds urged would establish any perversity in findings. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court as well as Appellate Court on appreciation of entire material on record passed impugned judgments. Hence, revision petition is without merit and is dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19