- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15022 CRL.RP No. 66 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 66 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SRILATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SANTHOSH SHETTY, R/AT C/O RAKSHITH NIVAS, NEAR FOREST OFFICE, JODUMARGA POST, BANTWAL TALUK 574 237 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SACHIN B.S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR B SURESH RAI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O K VITTAL RAI R/AT 304, NOTTING HILL APARTMENTS, PINTO GARDEN OPP VIKAS COLLEGE, AIRPORT ROAD, MARY HILL MANGALORE - 575 008 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M S DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15022 CRL.RP No. 66 of 2023 JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2022 IN CRL.A.NO.18/2022 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 06.01.2022 IN C.C.NO.834/2016 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C (V COURT) MANGALURU D.K., AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I. ACT. 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.Harsha G., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Sachin B. S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.834/2016 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.18/2022 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of the dishonored cheque issued by the accused towards repayment of the loan amount, a criminal prosecution was launched by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15022 CRL.RP No. 66 of 2023 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, noted that the defence evidence in the form of oral testimony of the accused was not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted the accused and ordered sum of Rs.5,38,000/- as fine amount of which sum of Rs.5,33,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State as against cheque amount of Rs.5,28,000/-. 5. The conviction order was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.18/2022. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, noted that the defence taken by the accused that the cheque in question was issued to Narayana Shetty which has been misused by the complainant is not probabilised and upheld the order of conviction. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15022 CRL.RP No. 66 of 2023 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. 9. He would further emphasize that accused being a gullible lady, issued a blank cheques in favour of Narayana Shetty as security towards the hand loan obtained by her from Narayana Shetty which was repaid but those blank cheques were not returned to her and same has been handed over to the complainant and a false case has been launched against the accused and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned judgments. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15022 CRL.RP No. 66 of 2023 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that cheque marked at Ex.P.1 and signature found therein is not in dispute. 13. According to the complainant, in respect of hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/-, accused has paid some amount and for the balance amount of Rs.5,28,000/-, she issued a cheque bearing No.250174 dated 18.07.2016 which on presentation came to be dishonored. 14. There was no compliance to the callings of the notice. Ex.P.9 is the loan sanction letter and income tax returns for the year 2015 – 2019 is placed on record to establish the lending capacity of the complainant. Passbook of the complainant is placed on record which is marked at Ex.P.10. 15. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate noticed that the complainant has discharged the initial burden to raise the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15022 CRL.RP No. 66 of 2023 16. 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 took a defence that cheque in question was in fact issued to Narayana Shetty. 17. According to her, Narayana Shetty and complainant colluded together and misused the cheque in question. 18. To substantiate the said aspect of the matter, Narayana Shetty is not examined as a witness on behalf of the complainant. Further, if there is a misuse of the cheque issued to Narayana Shetty by the complainant, some positive action was required to be initiated by the accused atleast after she was served with the summons filed by the complainant. No such attempt is made by the accused till now. 19. These aspects of the matter have been considered by both the Courts while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 20. In other words, rebuttal evidence that has been placed on record as to the alleged misuse and the lending - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15022 CRL.RP No. 66 of 2023 capacity of the complainant is not properly established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 21. Thus having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of conviction. 22. However, taking note of the fact that lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, sum of Rs.5,000/- by the learned Trial Magistrate towards defraying expenses of the State needs to be set aside. 23. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compensation amount ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.5,38,000/- is reduced to sum of Rs.5,33,000/-. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15022 CRL.RP No. 66 of 2023 iii. Amount of compensation in a sum of Rs.5,33,000/- shall be paid to the complainant on or before 30.03.2026 failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. iv. Amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State stands set aside. v. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31