- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15271 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 164 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SMT. RADHA C/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.387/388, 6TH CROSS SRI SHANESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD J.C. NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SR.ADV., SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADV.) AND: SMT. LATHA T C/O TEJUKUMAR N.S AGED 32 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 2ND MAIN ROAD J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 086. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVI J.S, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1479/2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15271 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri P P Hegde, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Ravi J S, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.3117 of 2018, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1479 of 2019, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 Upon a complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C, alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by contending that accused has borrowed a sum of ₹6,00,000/- in the first week of September, 2015 with a promise to repay the same in a short period and towards the repayment, issued a cheque dated 26.04.2018 bearing no.405350 in a sum of ₹.6,00,000/- which on presentation - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15271 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2022 came to be dishonored with "funds insufficient". It is also contented that statutory notice is not complied and therefore, sought for action. 4. Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused and recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, she got examined herself as PW1 and placed on record twelve documents comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal track documents, income tax returns, pan ticket, Beautician course certificate, license and yet another certificate. 6. As against the materials placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined herself as DW1 and placed on record a document marked as Ex.D1, which is a bank account statement of the accused. 7. According to the accused, she had borrowed only ₹.49,000/- which was repaid as could be seen from Ex.D1 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15271 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2022 a cheque which was given as security has been misused by the complainant and therefore, she was not liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. A Trial Judge disbelieving such a defence and also noting that the said defence was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed fine of ₹.6,00,000/- and in default three months imprisonment. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.1479 of 2019. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 16.11.2021. 11. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15271 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2022 12. Sri P. P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material available on record and wrongly convicted the accused. 13. He would further contend that there was a solitary transaction between the complainant and accused in a sum of ₹.49,000/- which was repaid by the accused as could be seen from Ex.D1 and cheques which were given as security was misused by the complainant and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the matter available on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material available on record, Ex.P1 cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. According to the complainant, accused has borrowed sum of ₹.6,00,000/- and towards the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15271 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2022 repayment, cheque came to be issued. Admittedly, legal notice is not replied nor demand therein is complied. 17. To substantiate the case of the complainant, she has placed documentary evidence on record like beautician course certificate and income tax returns. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial Magistrate raised the initial presumption in favour of the complainant. 18. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, accused stepped into the witness box and got examined herself by deposing that there is a misuse of the cheque. 19. In her cross-examination, she categorically admits that she has not taken any action for the alleged misuse by filing complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate. No doubt, she has stated that she has filed a complaint to the police but no such copy of the complaint is placed on record. 20. No normal prudent person would keep quite if the cheque in a sum of ₹.6,00,000/- is misused that too after engaging the services of an advocate before the trial Magistrate. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15271 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2022 21. Therefore, when the theory of misuse fails, there is no other material evidence on record which would be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption. Lending capacity of the complainant is no doubt questioned by the accused. But the material evidence on record would be sufficient enough to presume that the complainant had necessary lending capacity. More so, in the light of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJESH JAIN V. AJAY SINGH - (2023) 10 SCC 148. 22. Thus, viewed from any angle, none of the grounds urged in the revision petition would be sufficient enough to admit the same for further consideration. 23. Accordingly, following:- ORDER Criminal Revision Petition dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32