- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010323722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38738 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.754 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA R W/O MURALIDHAR V AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT SY. NO.2/3, PARVI GOLDEN NEST ASSOCIATION, 60 FEET ROAD NGEF LAYOUT, MALLATHALLI KERE ROAD KENGUNTE CROSS, NEAR DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE BENGALURU 560 056 ALSO AT NIKITHA MAKE UP STUDIO AND ACADEMY NO.581, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU 560 086 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR A S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PARAMESWARAPPA C, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. JYOTHI K W/O SIDDAGANGA S K, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.173, 8TH MAIN 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010323722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38738 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2026 BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE 560 079 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINEETH J JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GOPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LD XIX ADDL. CJM, BENGALURU IN CC NO.24675/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT 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 dated 07.03.2025 passed in C.C.No.24675/2021 and also against the judgment dated 06.03.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.591/2025. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused and her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.14 lakh during the firs week of March 2020 from the complainant to meet her business expenses agreeing to return - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010323722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38738 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2026 the same within three months. To discharge the said liability, accused has issued a cheque for Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice and the same was served on the accused but the accused failed to repay the cheque amount. Hence, complaint was lodged, cognizance was taken and accused was secured and she did not plead guilty and claims the trial. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, she herself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, accused also examined herself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D7. The defence which was taken before the Trial Court that amount of Rs.14 lakh was borrowed but contend that the same was repaid by way of cash and in tern, complainant and her husband have returned both dishonoured cheque as well as on demand promissory note to accused and her husband. The Trial Court taken note of the evidence and in paragraph 19, it is held that during the course of cross-examination, DW1 has admitted that - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010323722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38738 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2026 there is no signature of complainant or witnesses found in Ex.D1 and D2 for having paid the amount of Rs.14 lakh by way of cash. The Trial Court also held that there is no documentary evidence except contending that dishonoured cheques were returned back. It is very clear that when the cheques were dishonored, accused took time of 3 months to repay the same. But did not repay the same. The evidence of DW1 also taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraphs 19 and 20 and held that there is no any endorsement for having repaid the amount and the documents at Ex.D1 and D2 do not probable the case of the accused as there was no signature on the part of complainant and also there is no witnesses evidence. Even for having paid the amount also, DW1 categorically admits that she was not having any knowledge that from where the amount of Rs.14 lakh was got to repay the said amount and she deposed that she has to ask her husband in this regard and not examined her husband as witness to substantiate for having made the payment. DW1 deposed that at the time of repayment also she was very much present at the spot but her answer is very clear that she was not aware anything about - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010323722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38738 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2026 what had transpired on the date of repayment of the amount. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence available on record. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also taken note of the evidence of PW1 in paragraph 36, wherein, suggestion was made that amount was repaid and the same was categorically denied. In paragraph 37 also, Appellate Court taken note of the evidence of DW1 and held that DW1 has not placed any convincing material before the Court to substantiate her defence. Significantly, DW1 admitted that the cheque belongs to her and signature on the cheque is hers. The Appellate Court considered the evidence of PW1 as well as DW1 and also taken note of reasons for dishonour of the cheque and having re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that there is no error on the part of the Trial Court in convicting the accused. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010323722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38738 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2026 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present petition is filed before this court. 7. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend that when dishonored of two cheques were in the custody of the accused, there is no explanation on the part of the complainant. Both the Courts have not considered the evidence of the petitioner. Hence, interference of this Court is required. 8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would contend that both the Courts have considered the material on record in a proper perspective and there is no perversity in the finding of both the Courts. Hence, interference of this Court is does not require. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the accused has admitted the receipt of Rs.14 lakh but defence is that the said amount was repaid. But the complainant's evidence is very clear that accused took 3 months time to repay the amount when cheques were - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010323722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38738 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2026 dishonoured, but she did not repay the amount. Though, DW1 contend that the amount of Rs.14 lakh was repaid, but no documentary evidence is placed before the Court to substantiate the same. Even though, accused relied upon the documents of Ex.D1 and D2, the same not contains the signature of the complainant or any of the witnesses. Hence, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that Ex.D1 and D2 cannot be believed. The Appellate Court also on perusal of the material on record held that in the absence of credible rebuttal evidence, the defence version cannot be accepted as probable. When the amount of Rs.14 lakh borrowed was admitted by the accused, regarding repayment is concerned, nothing is placed on record. There is no probable evidence before the Trial Court for having repaid the amount. Having gone through the evidence of DW1, nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1 during the cross-examination. Apart from that DW1 was unable to answer that from where she got an amount of Rs.14 lakh to repay the same and she says that her husband knows about the same. But her husband is not examined before the Trial Court to substantiate her defence. Hence, I do - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010323722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38738 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2026 not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and Appellate Court since the order of both the Courts do not suffers from its legality and correctness. Under the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to admit the revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN