- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.759 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. MALINI L D/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1244, III MAIN, 5TH CROSS, I STAGE, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARJUN KUMAR, FOR SRI MANIVANNAN.G, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. T V THARAKESHWARI D/O K.T.VENKATANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.11, ‘NELE’ 2ND CROSS, II STAGE VINAYAKA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA BENGALURU-560 024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 18.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.No.1603/2017 AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 09.10.2017 PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.No.19969/2015 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Arjun Kumar, advocate for Sri G.Manivannan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri B.Vijay Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No. 19969/2015 dated 09.10.2017 on the file of the XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.12,00,000/- of which Rs.6,00,000/- is to be paid as compensation and balance sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State, which got modified in Crl.A. No.1603/2017 by the Order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, sentencing the accused to pay fine in a sum of Rs.6,10,000/-, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 4. A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that accused being the relative of the complainant, approached the complainant on 02.05.2014 requesting for hand loan in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- which was lent by the complainant on 03.05.2014. 5. Accused promised to repay the same and towards repayment of the same, issued a cheque bearing number 404891 dated 08.07.2015 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, SBM Colony Branch, Bengaluru, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 6. Statutory notice was issued and there was no compliance to the callings of the notice. There was no reply either. Accordingly action was sought against the accused. 7. Learned Trial Magistrate, after completing the necessary formalities, recorded the evidence of the parties and by the considered judgment dated 09.10.2017 convicted the accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 and imposed double the cheque amount as fine in a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with default sentence. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.1603/2017. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and modified the sentence by reducing the fine amount from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.6,10,000/- inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.28 to 31 as under: “28. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with settled principle of law, facts and probabilities of the case. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere in the reasoning and findings given by the Court below so as to convict the accused. As such the impugned judgment of conviction is in accordance with the settled principles of law, facts and probabilities of the case. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction deserves to be confirmed with. 29. However, the facts and circumstances involved in the case on hand, do warrant this Court to interfere with regarding imposing of sentence amount and requires to modify the sentence imposed on accused by trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 Because the transaction between the complainant and accused has taken place in view of the close acquaintance. The accused issued the cheque in question towards the repayment of the amount, which she received from the complainant to meet her financial necessities. But the learned Magistrate awarded compensation excess to the cheque amount without assigning any reasons and without any basis. Though it is permissible under law to impose fine to the tune of double the cheque amount, sufficient justifiable grounds need to be assigned by Court to impose fine or award compensation to the tune of excess to the cheque amount. 30. Herein this case, absolutely, no reasons are assigned by the learned Magistrate to award compensation excess to the cheque amount. It appears, the transaction has taken place under the close acquaintance of complainant with accused. Even there is no such agreement to pay interest on the loan amount. Even no document was obtained from the accused either as a security or with regard to payment of any interest. Therefore, these facts would go to show that the complainant had no intention to claim any interest on such amount. Such being the fact, the learned Magistrate is not justified in awarding compensation excess to the cheque amount. 31. Furthermore, the thing would have been different if the learned Magistrate assigned any reasons for awarding compensation excess to the cheque amount. As such, the learned Magistrate is not justified in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 awarding compensation excess to the cheque amount without assigning any reasons to that effect. So, on these facts, I am of the view that the impugned order of sentence deserves to be interfered so as to modify the quantum of compensation awarded to complainant. Therefore, considering the fact that the transaction has taken place between the complainant and the accused company with regard repayment of amount, which he received from the complainant towards execution of project, I feel that the accused shall be directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- instead of Rs.12,00,000/- as awarded. Hence, the impugned order of sentence deserves to be interfered only with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by learned Magistrate. Hence, impugned judgment of conviction deserves to be confirmed with by modifying the quantum of sentence as observed above. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the negative and point No.3 partly in the affirmative.” 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Sri Arjun Kumar, advocate representing Sri G.Manivannan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contented that the Order of conviction recorded by both the Courts is suffering from legal infirmities and perversity and thus calls for interference in the revisional jurisdiction and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 12. He would further contend that accused and complainant being relatives, complainant has misused the cheque issued by the accused and therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt which the Ex.P-1 cheque carried and sought for allowing the revision. 13. He would further contend that the complainant failed to prove that there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability and thus the very order of conviction is incorrect. 14. He also contends that the complainant did not possess sufficient balance in the account and thus she had no lending capacity which has been ignored by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision. 15. It is his last contention that revision petitioner being a deserted house wife, having a female child, taking shelter in her mother's house on account of the matrimonial dispute, did not have any necessity to take hand loan in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 16. Per contra, Sri Vijay Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque marked at Ex.P-1 belongs to the revision petitioner and signature found therein is that of the accused. 19. Though signature in Ex.P-1 was denied, complainant got examined the bank officer who furnished the specimen signature of the accused, which tallied with the signature found in Ex.P-1. Therefore, a false plea has been taken by the accused to demonstrate that she did not subscribe her signature on Ex.P-1/cheque. 20. Further, it is to be noted that, no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming on record as to how Ex.P-1/cheque reached the hands of the complainant. 21. Further, documentary evidence placed on record as Exhibit ‘D’ series is of no avail to the accused inasmuch as what - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 is found therein is that the name of the accused is shown as Malini. Whereas, in the present case her name is shown as Malini Swaroop. 22. It is an admitted fact that Swaroop is the husband's name and on account of matrimonial dispute, the revision petitioner doesn't want to identify herself as Malini Swaroop. 23. Be it what it may. Signature in Ex.P-1 is established as that of the accused by not only placing the cheque in question but also summoning the bank official who has furnished the specimen signature of the accused. 24. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court needs no interference, that too, in the revisional Jurisdiction, inasmuch as the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by the accused by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 25. The lending capacity of the complainant is no doubt questioned. But, in view of the authoritative principles of law - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12643 CRL.RP No. 759 of 2019 enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023)10 SCC 148, it is for the accused to establish that Ex.P-1 was not issued for legally recoverable debt. 26. Accordingly, viewed from any angle this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgments. 27. In fact, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did consider the appeal grounds in a proper manner and reduced the fine amount from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.6,10,000/-. 28. Thus, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 29. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are consigned to record. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31