- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35131 CRL.RP No. 1043 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1043 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMI STAR HEBBAL BEAUTY PARLOUR R/AT NO.440, 10TH MAIN ROAD LALITHA MAHAL NAGARA PARK OPPOSITE MYSURU DISTRICT-570 010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K, ADVOCATE) AND: N C SUNDARESH S/O LATE CHAMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. RADHA B W/O LATE N C SUNDARESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRI. VINAY S S/O LATE N C SUNDARESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NELAMANE VILLAGE K.SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 807 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35131 CRL.RP No. 1043 of 2026 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.D.NO.732 10TH 'A' CROSS, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHA LAYOUT MYSURU-570 011 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIANGAPATNA) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5021/2025 DATED 09.04.2026 AND ETC. 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 revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2025 passed in C.C.No.531/2018 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 09.04.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.5021/2025 by the Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35131 CRL.RP No. 1043 of 2026 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant while invoking the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the Trial Court is that complainant and accused are known to each other. With the said acquaintance, accused requested the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.6,00,000/- for legal necessity and for business on 18.03.2018. On the same day, the accused had issued a subject matter of cheque dated 06.04.2018 towards discharge of the loan amount borrowed by her. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused and the said notice was duly served on accused, but, she did not give any reply and also not complied with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured and she did not plead guilty and claims for trial. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. After the death of complainant, complainant's wife is examined as PW2 and produced additional two documents of Ex.P6 and P7. Sale deed is already marked as Ex.P6, thus, two - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35131 CRL.RP No. 1043 of 2026 documents produced by PW2 to be continued from Ex.P7 and P8. Hence, for the convenience of the discussion Ex.P6 and P7 shall be read as Ex.P7 and P8. On the other hand, accused examined herself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D10. The Trial Court having taken note that whether there was a transaction between the complainant and accused, appreciated the evidence available on record and also the defence which was taken in paragraph 32 to 34. In view of defence which was taken that she has availed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on behalf of one Nethravathi, Trial Court taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of DW1 in paragraphs 25 and 26. Having received the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- in the year 2016-17 from complainant’s wife i.e., PW2 and documents which are produced as Ex.D1 to D4 before the Trial Court by the accused, it shows that total amount of Rs.78,000/- is repaid but no document is produced for repayment of Rs.1,08,000/- to PW1. The Trial Court held that if the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from PW1, what made accused to make the payment of Rs.78,000/- and there is no explanation. With regard to the further evidence that her friend Nethravathi has paid entire amount of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35131 CRL.RP No. 1043 of 2026 Rs.50,000/- in 2016 to the accused. The Trial Court held that if the accused borrowed the alleged amount from PW2 to help the Nethravathi, why the accused has not paid the amount which was returned by Nethravathi to PW2 in the year 2016. Hence, comes to the conclusion that the very defence is doubtful. Trial Court also in detail discussed with regard to transaction in paragraphs 31 to 33. Even statement of Nethravathi was also extracted in paragraph 32 and Trial Court held that accused has never introduced the complainant or PW2 and accused herself borrowed the loan and lent the same to this Nethravati. Also the other defence that cheque was issued to PW2 for the security of loan transaction of Rs.50,000/-, but that does not mean that the said case is filed by the complainant by misusing the cheque. The Trial Court observed that the complainant has clearly stated the date of issuance of loan to the accused and also produced the documents to show that he had financial capacity to lend the loan to the accused and also the cheque pertains to the account of the accused and accused admits her signature and comes to the conclusion that there is no rebuttal evidence to probabilise the case of the accused. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35131 CRL.RP No. 1043 of 2026 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record and taking note of documents which have been produced on behalf of the accused at Ex.D8 to D10 and so also the cross examination wherein she has admitted about the availment of loan of Rs.50,000/- comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the petitioner and not properly appreciated the defence which was taken. Both Courts failed to take note that one Nethravati i.e., friend of the accused has sought financial assistance from the accused as the accused was not having money, borrowed the said sum from the Radha i.e., PW2 herein and by giving the Cheque, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35131 CRL.RP No. 1043 of 2026 mentioned that Radha had requested for the Cheque towards security of amount and the accused has paid the said amount to Nethravati. The accused has cleared the entire loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to PW2 in 2016-2017 along with interest and all these defence which were raised before the Trial Court were not taken note of either by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 8. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also considering the material available on record, it discloses that when the notice was issued to the accused, no reply was given. The defence which have been taken by the accused that only in order to help Nethravathi, amount was borrowed and given and the said amount was repaid. For having repaid the amount, no document is placed on record and no rebuttal evidence before the Trial Court with regard to the case of complainant. The case of the complainant is specific that accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and in turn issued the Cheque, when the said cheque was presented, the same was dishonored. When defence was raised that only Rs.50,000/- was received and the same was repaid before the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35131 CRL.RP No. 1043 of 2026 Trial Court, the same could have been raised before initiation of proceedings when notice was served but no reply notice was also given. Only afterthought, the said defence was taken and the same was considered by both the Courts. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court. Thus, no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN