- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28972 CRL.RP No. 712 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.712 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETHA B., W/O. SRI. A. BHASKARAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.115, 2ND FLOOR, DHANALAKSHMI NIVAS, 8TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 6TH PHASE, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHIVANAGAR WARD NO.107, BENGALURU-560 010 AND ALSO AT: BUSINESS AT 'RISHIKA GENERAL PROVISION STORE', 8TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH PHASE, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010 NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 096 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVANKUMAR Y. DHONGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. S.N. RANGARAJU, S/O. LATE H. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.99, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28972 CRL.RP No. 712 of 2026 1ST MAIN ROAD, 6TH PHASE, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHIVANAGARA WARD NO.107, BENGALURU – 560010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N.R.HARISH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.RP BY SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-24), IN CC.N.7827/2022 DISPOSED ON 01.07.2022 AS WELL AS FIRST APPELLANT COURT IN CRL.A.NO.1205/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-61), DATED 13.02.2026 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. 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 along with application for suspension of sentence. 2. The Trial Court having considered the evidence available on record, sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.5,10,000/-. The Trial Court also taken note of the issuance of cheque admitted by the accused i.e., Ex.P.1 and also bank endorsement Ex.P.2 and legal notice issued and the same was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28972 CRL.RP No. 712 of 2026 served. To that effect Ex.P.6 is produced before the Court and no reply was given. The defence which was taken by the accused before the Trial Court is discussed in paragraph No.36 by the Trial Court in detail that D.W.1 has categorically admitted the transfer of sum of Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque to the account of her husband, but contended that it was issued towards the chit transaction and hence, the Trial Court discussed in detail that no such complaint was given and even subscribers of the chit were also not examined. As per the defence of the accused, the wife and daughter of the complainant were the members in the chit business during the year 2018 to 2020. An observation is made that it is not made known by the accused as to the date on which or the year in which she has issued the Cheque. When cheque stated to have issued as security and when the entire chit amount stated to have received by the wife and daughter of the complainant during the year 2020, then if really the disputed cheque was issued towards the security, on closure of said chit business during the year 2020, the accused could have demanded the wife of the complainant for return of the cheque by issuing legal notice. But, admittedly, the accused has not taken any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28972 CRL.RP No. 712 of 2026 such steps. As per the evidence of the accused, when she asked the wife of the complainant to return the cheque, she raised quarrel with the accused. That being the case, the accused could have lodged the complaint against the wife of the complainant. But, the accused has not taken any such steps against the wife of the complainant. Having considered the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the very defence is not substantiated. In paragraph No.37, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that once the cheque is admitted, there is a presumption in favour of the complainant and the same is not rebutted under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted the accused. 3. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1205/2024. The Appellate Court also considering the grounds which have been urged, taken note of Ex.P.6 track consignment, accused served with notice marked at Ex.P.3 on 04.03.2022. The first ground urged that notice was not served was not accepted and so also with regard to the evidence available before the Trial Court was re-appreciated by the Appellate Court and comes to the conclusion that if really the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28972 CRL.RP No. 712 of 2026 cheque was given towards the chit, the same would have been substantiated and there is no any preponderance of probability evidence adduced by the accused and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material available on record and erroneously comes to the conclusion that there was a transaction between the parties and once again raised the very same ground that no notice was served. The learned counsel contend that the Trial Court ought to have acquitted, but convicted the accused. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the material available on record, it is not in dispute that cheque was issued and signature also not disputed. Only defence was taken that the said cheque was given in respect of the chit transaction and the same is not substantiated by producing any document and not examined any witness and even not given any reply to the notice and these factors were - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28972 CRL.RP No. 712 of 2026 taken note of by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. When such being the case, the revision scope is very limited only to examine the legality and correctness of the judgment and hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43