- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1182 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. S. NAGARAJ S/O. SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT C/O. SIDDALINGAPPA, MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, NO.21/B, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, KONANAKUNTE CROSS, BENGALURU-560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISHA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. R. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY S/O. LATE RAMA REDDY, AGED: MAJOR, R/AT NO. 59, "VIGNESH", IV PHASE, J. P. NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 068. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AKSHAY JAIN FOR SRI. ARJUN REGO, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 THIS CRIMINAL REVIISON PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2018 PASSED BY THE 55TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-56) IN CRL.A.NO.806/2015, BY WHICH THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVI ACMM, BANGALORE CITY DATED 15.05.2015 IN C.C.NO.1081/2011, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE AND ALSO RELEASE THE ACCUSED REVISION PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Girisha S. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Akshay Jain for sri. Arjun Rego, 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 CC No.1081/2011, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.806/2015, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be lodged by the respondent-complainant with the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that complainant extended the loan to the accused who was running the bar and restaurant in the name and style of 'Raj Bar and Restaurant'. Towards the repayment of the financial assistance, cheque bearing No.635963 in a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank, M.G. Road Branch was issued. On presentation for collection, cheque got dishonored with an endorsement 'opening balance insufficient'. A notice was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 issued calling upon the accused to make good the payment. Despite the service of notice, there was no compliance. Thereafter, complainant sought for action. 3.2 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held. 3.3 In order to prove the case of the complaint, he got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record six documents which are exhibited and marked as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P6. In fact, Exhibit P6 got marked by confronting the same to the accused when he was examined as PW1. 3.4 The remaining five documents are the dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice and Postal acknowledgment. 3.5 Ex.P6 is the agreement said to have been executed by the accused declaring the full and final settlement of the dues between the parties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 3.6 As against the material evidence placed on record, accused got examined himself as DW1 and his wife as DW2. They placed on record six documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits D1 to D6, which are Private Complaint No.41425/2010, Plaint in OS No.6634/2010, copy of the legal notice, certified copy of the order sheet in OS No.6634/2010, Evidence recorded, and the order sheet of the private complaint filed by the accused. 3.7 Learned Trial Magistrate after recording the evidence of the parties, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and noted the material evidence placed on record in a cumulative manner and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed fine of Rs.40,10,000/- of which a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant inter alia holding in paragraphs No.18 and 19 as under : - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 18. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has stated in his complaint that accused was badly in need of funds to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs and he mobilized the funds and paid a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- through RTGS and Rs.52,25,000/- by way of cash to the accused and to discharge Rs.60 lakhs accused had issued disputed cheque. Whereas, the same facts has also been stated by the complainant in his Sworn Statement filed by way of Affidavit, but, the complainant in his affidavit evidence has stated that the accused was badly in need of funds to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs to rectify his financial and business problems, as such, he mobilized funds and paid a 13 C.C.1081-2011 sum of Rs.28,75,000/- through RTGS and Rs.31,25,000/- by way of cash. So, there is a variance in between the pleadings of complaint and affidavit evidence regarding payment of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused by the complainant and the complainant has no where stated either in his complaint or in his affidavit evidence that on which date, month and year he had advanced a loan of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused, but, any way the accused has admitted in his defence evidence that the complainant had transferred Rs.28 lakhs to his account through RTGS and Rs.6 lakhs to the account of his wife and he further clearly admits that the complainant had transferred totally an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to his account through RTGS. In view of admission of accused, it is crystal clear that the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused by way of RTGS. So, undoubtedly there is no dispute with regard to transfer of money of Rs.34 lakhs by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 the complainant to the account of accused through RTGS. The complainant got marked Ex.P6 full and final settlement of sale with Bar & Restaurant licence and vacant possession delivered through this agreement executed by accused in favour of the complainant, which clearly discloses that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs to the accused under Ex.P6 and as I have already stated above the accused has admitted that the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to his account through RTGS. So, there is no dispute with regard to transferring of Rs.34 lakhs by the complainant to the account of the accused through RTGS, but, the complainant has contended that he had advanced a loan of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused, out of which an amount of Rs.7,75,000/- was transferred to the account of the accused through RTGS and paid Rs.52,25,000/- by way of cash. Whereas, I have already stated 14 C.C.1081-2011 above, the complainant in his affidavit evidence has stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.28,75,000/- to the accused through RTGS and Rs.31,25,000/- by way of cash. In this regard I have already stated above that there is a variance in between the pleadings of complainant and affidavit evidence of complainant. So, from this variance in between the pleadings and affidavit evidence of complainant, it is crystal clear that the complainant himself is not firm as to how much he had transferred money to the account of the accused through RTGS. Whether he had transferred an amount of Rs.7,75,000/- to the account of the accused through RTGS or an amount of Rs.28,75,000/- to the account of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 the accused through RTGS. Anyway, the accused had admitted that the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to his account through RTGS. So, there is no dispute with regard to transferring of money of Rs.34 lakhs by the complainant to the account of accused. But, with regard to balance amount of Rs.26 lakhs said to have been advanced by the complainant to accused by way of cash, no material evidence is placed on record by the complainant to show that he had advanced an amount of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash, apart from transferring of an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused by way of RTGS, totally a sum of Rs.60 lakhs and the complainant has not at all produced any documents to show that he was in possession of remaining amount Rs.26 lakhs in cash and he paid the said amount, apart from transferring of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused through RTGS, totally to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused. PW-1/complainant in his crossexamination has stated that he is an income tax assessee and he further stated that he has not shown the amount advanced to the accused in his I.T. returns and no documents are produced in this 15 C.C.1081-2011 regard. As per the allegations of the complainant, he had advanced a sum of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused. Admittedly, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused, there is no dispute in this regard, but, so far as remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs it is also a very huge amount said to have been advanced by the complainant to accused, the complainant had not at all produced any documents as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 stated above and regarding possession of said huge amount of Rs.26 lakhs with him, the complainant has not produced any documents. So, prima facie the complainant has failed to prove his capacity to pay a sum of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash to the accused except transferring of amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the bank account of the accused. It is the allegation of the complainant that he has advanced an amount of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused and for repayment of the said loan the accused had issued disputed cheque Ex.P1 for Rs.60 lakhs. The accused has also admitted that Ex.P1 disputed cheque is belongs to his account and the signature found on the same is of him. But, the question arises about the genuineness of the disputed cheque, since, an amount of Rs.34 lakhs which amount admittedly has been transferred by the complainant to the account of the accused through RTGS, but as I have already stated above regarding balance amount of Rs.26 lakhs said to have been paid by the complainant to the accused by way of cash, absolutely there is no material placed on record by the complainant. So, doubt creates about the remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs said to have been advanced by the complainant to the accused by way of cash except transferring of Rs.34 lakhs by the complainant to the account of the accused through RTGS. Therefore, as I have already stated above doubt creates about the genuineness of the Ex.P1, the disputed cheque, with 16 C.C.1081-2011 respect to remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs said to have been paid by the complainant by way of cash to the accused. As admitted by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 complainant he is an income tax assessee, but he has not shown the amount advanced to the accused in his I T returns. If at all the allegations of the complainant that he had paid balance amount of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash to the accused, apart from transferring of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused by way of RTGS were to be correct, the complainant could have produced I.T. Returns showing that he had paid a sum of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash to the accused, but he has not produced the same and as I have already stated above that absolutely no documents are produced by the complainant to show that he was in possession of huge amount of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash and he paid the said amount to the accused, apart from transferring of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused through RTGS, totally to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs said to have been paid to the accused by the complainant. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the complainant has partly proved that he had advanced an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the accused by way of transferring the same to the account of the accused through RTGS, but, he has failed to prove that he had paid remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs to the accused by way of cash. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the complainant has partly proved that he had advanced an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the accused by way of transferring the same to the account of the accused through RTGS, 19. On going through the complaint averments, affidavit of PW1 and his cross-examination and Ex.P1 to P6 and the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 and their cross- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 examination, it is crystal clear that the complainant before filing this complaint has fulfilled the necessary 17 C.C.1081-2011 ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The onus of proof to rebut the presumption available to complainant u/s 139 of N.I. Act is lies upon the accused. The standard of such rebuttal evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be sufficient, cogent and should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to complainant u/s 139 of N.I. Act. The cheque Ex.P1 partly presumed to be issued for the legally enforceable debt. On the other hand, the complainant has proved his case that accused has committed offence punishable u/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing cogent, convincing and believable evidence and by producing documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P6. Therefore, I answer the point no.1 in the affirmative. 3.8 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.806/2015. 3.9 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 on record, dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 as under: 12. Now let us scrutiny the evidence on record, whether the order of the trial court is called for interference. PW1 the respondent stated before the court that appellant is having a Bar and Restaurant running under the name and style of Raj Bar and Restaurant at Amutha Nagara, Main Road, New Bank Colony. The accused requested for financial help to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- and accordingly the respondent had paid Rs.28,00,000/- through RTGS and Rs.31,00,000/- by way of cash and thereafter accused pledged the original document of Bar and Restaurant in favour of respondent and thereafter the respondent came to know that accused was already leased the Bar and Restaurant to some other person prior to getting loan from the respondent and this matter has been brought before the appellant and apologized and towards the discharge of the 9 Crl. Appeal. No.806/2015 amount received the appellant had executed a cheque of Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on ING- Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road and thereafter the cheque was presented for encashment, but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and legal notice caused demanding the repayment of the amount. But the appellant gave deaf ears. The legal notice served through UCP and RPAD. Hence this case arose against the appellant before the trail court invoking the sec.138 of the N.I. Act. The documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 marked. It is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 stated in the cross-examination that earlier the respondent was running a hotel business. Now he is running land developing business and he knew the accused since 6 to 7 years. The respondent was also running a Bar and Restaurant at Jayanagar and accused was running Bar and Restaurant at Konanakunte. It is stated in the cross-examination that he paid Rs.28,00,750/- through RTGS and also agreed that in the legal notice and in the complaint he has stated that he has sent a sum of Rs.77,05,000/- and much has been cross-examined with regard to the amount owned by him at the time of payment of RTGS and it is his statement that he is a Income Tax Assessee and also stated that there was a 10 Crl. Appeal. No.806/2015 civil case pending in between the parties in O.S.No.6634/2010 and it is much has been cross-examined that the RTGS was of Rs.34,00,000/- mentioned in the recovery of money suit and denied the rest of the cross-examination part of the defence. 13. DW1 has stated that he had obtained loan of Rs.34,00,000/- from KSFC and asked PW1 to clear-off of loan of Rs.34,00,000/- to KSFC and accordingly the respondent/ complainant repaid the bank loan of Rs.34,00,000/- and remaining Rs.28,00,000/- was credited to Bank through RTGS and the respondent has taken 10 blank cheques of him and also 10 blank cheques belonging to his wife and filed a false case by filing cheque for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-. In the crossexamination he has stated that he was a defaulter to SBI and Thyagarajanagar Co-operative Bank for a sum of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 Rs.34,00,000/- and the said Rs.34,00,000/- Bank loan was settled for a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- under OTS Scheme and he further stated that the complainant has issued a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- through RTGS to his account towards repayment of bank loan. 11 Crl. Appeal. No.806/2015 14. On perusal of Ex.P.6 the document in respect of full and final settlement of sale in respect of Bar and Restaurant in between the appellant & respondent for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. This document was not questioned and not rebutted before the trial court. The trial court has observed that the complainant has proved that he has paid Rs.34,00,000/- through RTGS to the Bank account of appellant. Therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that instead of Rs.60,00,000/- the complainant had paid only Rs.34,00,000/- through RTGS and accordingly passed the Judgment. Now considering the materials available on record and document produced in this case also evidence adduced by both the parties the PW1 in his evidence has stated that he has sent a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- through RTGS to the Bank account of appellant and appellant has also agreed in the evidence that a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- had been paid through RTGS to his Bank account towards the loan amount taken by him in the Bank. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has admitted that a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- through RTGS was received to his account from the respondent towards the repayment of loan taken by him in the Bank account. So far as the income tax 12 Crl. Appeal. No.806/2015 returns are concerned respondent is - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 a businessmen earlier he was doing hotel business. Thereafter he is a defaulter as per his statement and through Bank only money transactions were made. It is clear that the orders of the trial court does not called for interference and the Judgment is based upon the sound principles of law and fact. Hence, for these reasons the point no.1 is answered in the affirmative and the point Nos.2 is answered in the negative. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently contend that the complainant had no lending capacity to lend the huge sum Rs.36,00,000/- as alleged by him. 6. He also points out that only sum of Rs.7,75,000/- is transferred by RTGS as is found from the complaint as well as the legal notice and therefore, story is set up by the complainant that he has lent the sum of Rs.36,00,000/- is part from truth. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 7. He would also emphasize that the cheque in question was issued as security which has been misused by the complainant and in that regard the necessary action has been taken by the accused. 8. Counsel for the petitioner would further point out that having regard to the magnitude of the matter, the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be used absolutely especially in the light of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the accused by examining himself and his wife and thereafter the burden was shifted to the complainant to lead further evidence and since there is no further evidence on behalf of the complainant, the order of conviction recorded by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs interference in this revision process. 9. Per contra, counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides this court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record issuance of the cheque and signature of the accused in the said cheque is not in dispute. 12. According to the complaint, towards the repayment of the amount, Cheque in question came to be issued. Legal notice is admittedly not replied. 13. Taking note of these aspects of the matter the initial presumption has been rightly raised by the learned Trial Magistrate as is contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. To rebut the said presumption, accused got examined himself as DW1 and his wife as DW2. He has also placed on record six documents as referred to supra. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 15. During the course of cross-examination accused admits the document which is the full and final settlement deed vide Exhibit P6. 16. However, it is the case of the accused that the Cheque in question was given as security and not towards the repayment of the alleged loan amount. 17. Therefore, according to the accused, the rebuttal evidence has been placed and thereby the burden to prove that there existed a loan in a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- and towards the repayment, the cheque marked at Exhibit P1 came to be issued is to be established by the complainant again by placing necessary evidence. 18. Issuance of the cheque towards the security and whether it would attract offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is no longer res integra. 19. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sreepathi Singh versus State of Jharkhand reported in - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 has categorically held as under: "17. When a cheque is issued and is treated as ‘security’ towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment, all that it ensures is that such cheque which is issued as ‘security’ cannot be presented prior to the loan or the instalment maturing for repayment towards which such cheque is issued as security. Further, the borrower would have the option of repaying the loan amount or such financial liability in any other form and in that manner if the amount of loan due and payable has been discharged within the agreed period, the cheque issued as security cannot thereafter be presented. Therefore, the prior discharge of the loan or there being an altered situation due to which there would be understanding between the parties is a sine qua non to not present the cheque which was issued as security. These are only the defences that would be available to the drawer of the cheque in a proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, there cannot be a hard and fast rule that a cheque which is issued as security can never be presented by the drawee of the cheque. If such is the understanding a cheque would also be reduced to an ‘on demand promissory note’ and in all circumstances, it would only be a civil litigation to recover the amount, which is not the intention of the statute. When a cheque is issued even though as ‘security’ the consequence flowing therefrom is also known to the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 drawer of the cheque and in the circumstance stated above if the cheque is presented and dishonoured, the holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation. 18. If the above principle is kept in view, as already noted, under the loan agreement in question the respondent No.2 though had issued the cheques as security, he had also agreed to repay the amount during June/July 2015, the cheque which was held as security was presented for realization on 20.10.2015 which is after the period agreed for repayment of the loan amount and the loan advanced had already fallen due for payment. Therefore, prima facie the cheque which was taken as security had matured for payment and the appellant was entitled to present the same. On dishonour of such cheque the consequences contemplated under the Negotiable Instruments Act had befallen on respondent No.2. As indicated above, the respondent No.2 may have the defence in the proceedings which will be a matter for trial. In any event, the respondent No.2 in the fact situation cannot make a grievance with regard to the cognizance being taken by the learned Magistrate or the rejection of the petition seeking discharge at this stage." - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 20. Therefore, contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that the cheque in question issued as a security when dishonoured would not get attracted an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be countenanced in law. 21. Further, if the cheque is misused, proper action should have been taken on record by the accused. 22. In that regard, in cross-examination of DW1, he has specifically stated that he has filed a complaint to Kumarswamy Layout Police Station. But the material on record especially the Private complaint that has been marked by Exhibit D1 does not relate to the present transaction nor the same is not brought to the logical end. So also the pendency of the civil suit has no relevance whatsoever while deciding the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act except if any payment is made in this case needs to be considered in civil suit. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, when the complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is not rebutted by placing cogent evidence on record, the conviction order recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 24. Evidence of DW2 who is none other than the wife of DW1 did not advance the case of the accused to any extent. In fact, it is contradictory to the evidence of DW1 himself. 25. The answers elicited in the cross-examination of DW2 would run contrary to the case set up by the accused and up against the case that has been set up by DW1 in his examination-in-chief. 26. Further, question of lending capacity of the complainant also cannot be countenanced in law in view of the authoritative principles of law cannot enunciated by - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23153 CRL.RP No. 1182 of 2018 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148 and Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar and another reported in 2025 SCC online SC 2069. 27. Accordingly, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds to interfere with the order of the conviction recorded by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 28. Hence, following order: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 51