- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35884 CRL.RP No. 1040 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1040 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K.C. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SRI JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.2415/K 8TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN HAMPI NAGAR, RPC LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K.C. SRINIVAS S/O LATE CHIKKANNA SHEETI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.84, 4TH CROSS VIDYARANYAPURA MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU-560 092. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.08.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.67), BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A.NO.648/2018 AND CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35884 CRL.RP No. 1040 of 2018 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE IN C.C.NO.26500/2016 ON 06.03.2018 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 2. This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding and the Trial Court invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act convicted the accused and sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.8,74,500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. 3. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that accused had made the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant as against Rs.12,83,000/- and in respect of the balance amount, she had issued the subject matter of Cheque i.e., for Rs.5,83,000/- and the same was presented, the said Cheque returned unpaid and dishonoured with bankers memo ‘payment stopped by drawer’. Immediately, notice was issued - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35884 CRL.RP No. 1040 of 2018 and she did not enter into witness box and nothing is suggested in the cross-examination that the complainant and his brother forcibly only with an intention to knock off the property got the partition deed and forcibly obtained the Cheque Ex.P1 and the same was denied and this defence was not substantiated by the accused. Even, she had not enter into the witness box and also not denied the signature available in Ex.P1 and the Trial Court also taking note of the transaction of the year 2016 and while disposing of the matter in the year 2018, convicted and sentenced the accused for an amount of Rs.8,74,500/-. 4. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.648/2018 and the First Appellate Court also on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence that specific defence was taken that forcibly taken the signature of the revision petitioner and also contend that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35884 CRL.RP No. 1040 of 2018 already there was a Will in his favour executed by the father and now, question of making payment and also by misusing the illegal partition deed, the respondent and his brother made her to concede for their illegal demand of making payment of Rs.12,83,000/- by way of cash and the balance amount of Rs.5,83,000/- by way of disputed Cheque in favour of the respondent for his purported relinquishment of his rights on the said house property, even though the said property was already bequeathed in her favour by late father on 11.12.2012, where she was in physical possession and residing with her family, inspite of threat and physical assault. The counsel would vehemently contend that the very defence was not considered. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35884 CRL.RP No. 1040 of 2018 (ii) What order? 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is made clear that scope of revision is very limited and only if order suffers from its legality and correctness, then only the revision petition can be entertained by this Court. The very specific case of complainant while invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act, the accused got relinquished the right of the complainant and as against the amount of Rs.12,83,000/-, only made the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of the complainant by cash and issued a post-dated Cheque on 10.06.2016 for balance amount of Rs.5,83,000/-. It is not in dispute that the said Cheque was not honoured. Hence, notice was issued and counsel would submit that no notice was served. But, the fact is that the address mentioned in the legal notice was not denied by the accused and even the address is not denied, the Court has to take note of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and unless contrary is established by the accused, the very contention cannot be accepted. 8. The other contention is that both the complainant and his brother forcibly taken the signature and misused the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35884 CRL.RP No. 1040 of 2018 said Cheque and in order to substantiate the same, no material is placed on record. The Trial Court also taken note of the said defence in paragraph No.38 and detailed discussion was made that, if really the defence of the accused was true, then certainly, she would have collected the post and would have replied it suitably by taking the defence as taken by her during the course of cross-examination. Hence, whatever the defence taken by the accused during the course of cross-examination is nothing but afterthought. It is the specific case of the complainant that part payment was made to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- and for balance amount, the Cheque was issued and when such specific contention was taken by the complainant with regard to part payment and also relied upon the document of Ex.P7-partition deed and issuance of cheque and signature available in the Cheque is not disputed and all these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and not denied the part payment of Rs.7,00,000/-. 9. 9. When reasoning is given and specific case of the complainant is also not rebutted in the cross-examination of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35884 CRL.RP No. 1040 of 2018 P.W.1 and the accused also not led any defence evidence with regard to misusing of the Cheque and fraud committed by the complainant as well as the brother and nothing is substantiated and evidence of the complainant is not rebutted by leading evidence and there is no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of N.I. Act, I answer point No.(i) as ‘negative’. Point No.(ii): 10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53