- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26813 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.31 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. ESHWARA N., S/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.33, 13TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VIDYARANAYAPURAM, MYSURU-570008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ROSITA MARY, D/O.LORENS D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.655, 4TH MAIN, 19TH CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI H.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION ORDER DATED 29.12.2021 PASSED IN C.C.NO.2560/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU ANT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.32/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26813 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2023 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.2560/2016 and also the order passed by the Appellate Court confirming the finding of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.32/2022. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the complainant and the accused are well known to each other from last several years. That on 14.04.2016, the accused approached the complainant for financial assistance and borrowed the hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant for his legal necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. on demand made by the complainant within a span of one month. The accused issued a cheque and when the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26813 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2023 same was presented, it was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused. Inspite of service of notice, the accused neither chosen to pay nor replied. Hence, a complaint came to be filed and summons was issued. In pursuance of the summons, the accused appeared before the Trial Court though his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The complainant in order to prove her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 12. The accused examined himself as D.W.1, but no documents were marked. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted and sentenced the accused. 4. The First Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. The main contention of the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26813 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2023 error in accepting the case of the complainant and not pursued the matter properly and utterly failed to consider that if any transaction is more than Rs.20,000/-, it must be by way of cheque under the Income Tax Act. But in the instant case, the respondent alleged to have lent Rs.5,00,000/-. The same was not taken note of by the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court and hence, it requires interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Trial Court has taken note of the evidence, particularly the documentary evidence cheque, which is not disputed and also appreciated the same while appreciating the evidence. The Appellate Court also rightly reiterated the same and there is no any error on the part of both the Courts and the order does not suffer from legality and correctness. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also particularly considering the material available on record, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26813 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2023 the cheque Ex.P.1 is not disputed and signature is also admitted. But, only contention was taken that his mother wanted to sell the house. In this regard, the complainant had advanced Rs.1,00,000/- for the purchase of the house, but later the mother of the accused disagreed to sell the same. In this connection, cheque was issued for security and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was repaid. The Trial Court also taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.21 and 22 and even extracted the oral evidence of D.W.1 in the cross- examination. Nothing is substantiated with regard to the defence is concerned and even not produced any document, except oral evidence to show that amount was repaid. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court also having re- assessed the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the presumption was not rebutted under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is a rebuttable presumption and hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts and the same does not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26813 CRL.RP No. 31 of 2023 suffer from any illegality in its correctness and no ground is made out to admit the appeal. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31