- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29008 CRL.RP No. 134 of 2025 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. 134 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. KANAKARATHNA, W/O SRI.GANGANNA, AGE 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT NO.216/3C, BALAJI ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, THYAGARAJA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 028. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LANKESH L., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SHANKAR RAO, S/O LATE SRI.NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.B-44, PVR ROAD, NEAR CHIKKAPETE METRO STATION, BENGALURU - 560 053. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED BY XX ADDITIONAL Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29008 CRL.RP No. 134 of 2025 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.4812/2021 AND ORDER DATED 05.11.2024 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.74/2023 HAVING CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.4812/2021 BY CONVICTING AND SENTENCED THE PETITIONER BY IMPOSING FINE OF RS.2,60,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT. 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 Sri. L.Lankesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.ishwanatha, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the petitioner-accused and the respondent-complainant are known to each other from past 10 years. During the third week of June 2020, the accused availed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from him by way of cash for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29008 CRL.RP No. 134 of 2025 clearing her liabilities and also on family necessities and agreed to repay the same within six months. Even after completion of six months, the accused did not return the money and on several requests in order to discharge her liability issued the cheque i.e., the subject matter of the case and when the same was presented, returned unpaid with an endorsement ''kindly contract drawer Bank and please present again''. The same was communicated by issuing the notice against the accused and the same was served, no reply was given and did not comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. Thereafter, accused was secured before the Trial Court. She did not plead guilty. The Trial Court considering the defence that the amount was already paid, the same was not substantiated. The Trial Court considering the material on record, accepted the case of the complainant that there is no any rebuttal evidence to prove the defence by placing any evidence of preponderance of probabilities and convicted and sentenced and the same is questioned before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.74/2023. 4. The Appellate Court also having considered the material on record in paragraph No.29 and came to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29008 CRL.RP No. 134 of 2025 conclusion that there is sufficient material on record to prove the case of the complainant and also comes to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. There was no any rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of the NI Act. The Trial Court has rightly convicted and confirmed the sentence. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before this Court vehemently contended that both the Courts have committed an error. Learned counsel also submitted that the amount was repaid and the same is not appreciated and it is contended that only he has received the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent. At that time, respondent has received four signed blank cheques from the petitioner. Even though the petitioner repaid the amount, he did not return the blank signed cheques. In order to substantiate the same, no such material is placed before the Court, not even given any reply and only on afterthought, the above said defence was taken in the absence of any material to that effect, and rebuttal evidence question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise. The scope of revision petition is only limited, that to only this Court has to examine the legality - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29008 CRL.RP No. 134 of 2025 and correctness in the case on hand, issuance of cheque is not in dispute and signature is also not in dispute. The only defence is that handed over four cheques, the same were misused and the same is not substantiated. Both the Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court taken note of the material on record. Hence, no case is made out to admit the revision petition. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BH : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24