- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1050 OF 2022 BETWEEN: M LAKSHMI W/O M.PRASANNA KUMAR AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, 10TH MAIN, COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, NEAR BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. VASANTH MADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: R.V. MAHESH S/O R.V. GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.208, CUBIS APARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR COFEE BOARD LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE - 560 024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR K H.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE 18TH ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.22492/2016 DATED 07.03.2019 AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A.NO.803/2019 DATED 16.05.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 59TH ACMM COURT (CCH-60) BANGALORE CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT ALLOW THIS R.P WITH COST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Vasanth Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.22492/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.803/2019, is the revision petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under : 3.1 A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by alleging that, complainant was the tenant under the husband of the accused in the year 2014. Thus, complainant and accused are well acquainted with each other. Accused has requested the complainant for financial assistance in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same within couple of months. Complainant had given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.07.2014 and a sum Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.08.2014 which is reflected in Exhibit P5. 3.2 Despite repeated demands there was no repayment of loan. Finally, in the second week of May 2016, when demand was made, a Cheque bearing No.475798 dated 01.06.2016 came to be issued in a sum - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. 3.3 Legal notice was issued on 02.08.2016. calling upon the accused to make good the payment covered under the cheque. There was no compliance to the callings of the notice and therefore the complainant has sought for necessary action against the accused. 3.4 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held. 3.5 In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined as PW1 and placed on record eight documents comprising of dishonour cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, reply notice, bank statement, rental agreement, written statement in OS No.4190/2016. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 3.6 As against the same, accused got herself examined as DW1 and Sri. Prasanna Kumar as DW2 as a witness on her behalf and they placed on record three documents namely a Challan, order sheet in OS No.4190/2016 and the statement. 3.7 Learned Trial Magistrate on conclusion of recording of evidence, noted that accused has categorically admitted receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- as per Exhibit P5 on 21.07.2014 and further noted that Cheque in question belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused raised initial presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is rebuttable in nature. 3.8 In order to rebut the presumption of the complaint, accused got examined herself as DW1 and one witness Prasanna Kumar as DW2. 3.9 Learned Trial Magistrate took into consideration the admission made by the accused as well - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 as DW2 wherein he has admitted that in July 2015 and admission of DW2 wherein it has been admitted that he is a Senior Accountant in Coffee Board and in Exhibit P7, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as shown as the advance amount. 3.10 PW1 has also admitted in her cross- examination that in July 2015 he has vacated the premises of the husband of the accused and on 16.12.2016, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was returned towards advance amount. 3.11 Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed fine of Rs.6,10,000/-, of which, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards the defraying expense of the State. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 3.12 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.803/2019. 3.13 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused by considered judgment dated 16.05.2022. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 5. Sri. Vasanth Madhav learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that the complainant became tenant under the husband of the accused in the month of August 2014 and therefore there could not be any hand loan in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.07.2014 as is contended in the complaint and thus sought for allowing the revision. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 6. He would further contend that cheque in question was issued as security towards the repayment of the advance amount and once the repayment has been made which has been admitted by PW1, the cheque was not returned. But the same was misused by the complainant and said aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by both the Courts and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that Exhibit P1 Cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. There is a categorical admission in the witness - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 box by the accused that she has received the hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.07.2014 as is reflected in Exhibit P5. 10. Further, there was a return of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance amount. Therefore cheque in question came to be issued in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The said aspect of the matter is rightly appreciated by both the Courts while connecting the accused. 11. The presumption that has been raised in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is no doubt a rebuttable presumption. 12. In order to rebut the said presumption, oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 coupled with the probative value of Exhibit D1 to D3 was not sufficient enough. 13. Learned Trial Magistrate noting the fact that the transaction dated 21.07.2014 having been established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the complainant, rightly convicted the accused, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 14. This Court having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by revisiting in to factual aspects. 15. Insofar the direction to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State needs interference by this Court in this revision in view of the fact that lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. Accordingly, the same needs to be set-aside. 16. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition allowed-in-part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17911 CRL.RP No. 1050 of 2022 Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.6,10,000/- is reduced to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.6,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant as compensation. (iv) A sum of Rs.10,000/- imposed by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards defraying expense of the State is hereby set- aside. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with the copy of this Order for issue of modified conviction order. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31