- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26969 CRL.RP No. 868 of 2026 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. 868 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITHA M W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.30, OM SREE, MEENAKSHI DEVI NIALAYA, 6TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, HOSAPALYA, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560 068. THE PETITIONER'S CORRECT ADDRESS IS NO.34, GOKULA, 3RD CROSS, HOSAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.ANNAIAH C V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.N.J.CHANDREGOWDA S/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.28/1, KRISHNAREDDY LANE, MURUGESHPALYA, BENGALURU-560 017. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26969 CRL.RP No. 868 of 2026 BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED BY THE XXXIII A.C.J.M MAYO HALL UNIT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.56073/2022 DATED 09.05.2025 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLANT COURT IN CRL.A.NO.25197/2025 DATED 01.04.2026 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU CCH-73 FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CASE FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. 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. 2. Heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. 3. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the trial Court, that complainant was working in a MICO BOSCH India Ltd., Bidadi, Ramanagar District. He had retirement benefits from his voluntary retirement and the husband of the accused Chandrappa being his colleague and his friend being aware of the said facts, he had requested the complainant for financial assistance of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26969 CRL.RP No. 868 of 2026 Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) for the marriage of his sister's daughter as per his request, the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) by way of cash and Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) by UPI in the year 2019 and at that time, the accused had assured to return the same within 3 months. After completion of 3 months, when the complainant insisted, the same was dragged for one or the other reasons and when he visited the house of the accused and demanded for repayment, then the accused issued a subject matter of Cheque in favour of the complainant towards repayment of the said loan. The accused and her husband jointly requested again on 08.02.2022 not to present the said cheque for encashment for about 1 month and accordingly, the complainant called the accused and her husband and demanded for repayment of the same on 12.03.2022 for which once again time was extended and when the complainant presented the Cheque, the same was returned with an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26969 CRL.RP No. 868 of 2026 endorsement ‘account closed’. The notice was issued and the same was served and not given any reply. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the trial Court and complainant relied upon the document of Exs.P1 to P5. 4. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, The D.W.1 denied the signature, but not sent the same to the handwriting expert and different defence was taken, the cheque was stolen and the same was misused and the same is not substantiated. The trial Court also considering the documents as well as oral evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner and the same is challenged before the appellate Court and the appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 had discussed about the signature available in Ex.P1-cheque and also the cross examination portion of the evidence wherein D.W.1 has admitted about the service of notice and the signature - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26969 CRL.RP No. 868 of 2026 found on Ex.P5 i.e., postal acknowledgment and though denied the signature available in Ex.P1 and the same was not taken to prove that the Cheque not belongs to the accused and also during the cross examination admitted that CCTV camera has been installed in her shop and CCTV footage were available with them. If really, the complainant has stolen her cheque, she could have lodged a complaint by submitting CCTV footage and when such, defense of Cheque stolen was taken and the same was also discussed by the appellate Court in paragraph No.21. 5. Having considered the reasoning given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the said contention cannot be accepted once the accused denies the signature available in Ex. P1 ought to have taken steps to send the same to the handwriting expert and also other defence was taken that cheque was stolen and both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court with regard to the defence, come to the conclusion that the same was not substantiated. Once the cheque was issued there is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26969 CRL.RP No. 868 of 2026 presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act and the same has to be rebutted under Section 139 of N I Act. But the same is not rebutted. When such material is available on record and reasons are assigned, the scope of the revision is very limited and hence, I do not find any ground to come to a conclusion that the reasoning given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness. Thus, it is not a case to admit the revision. 6. In view of the above observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48