- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2915 CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 107 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MRS. SHAKUNTALA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O MR. DEVENDRA K R/AT DOOR NO. 1-117/1 DUGGI HOUSE MEENAKALIYA PSOT BAIKAMPADY MANGALURU D.K DISTRICT - 575 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADV.) AND: MANGALA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED REGISTERED UNDER THE KAR NATAKA CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PALMA CENTRE, NEAR KSRTC BEJAI MANGALURU - 575 002. REP. BY BRANCH MNAGER OF MANGALA CREDIT CO OPERATIE SOCIETY LIMITED SURATHKAL BRANCH SMT. USHALATHA W/O MR. BHOJA DEVADIGA MAJRO R/AT 'SAI BABA NIASA' AGARAMELU, SURATHKAL MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 014. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2915 CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024 (BY SRI P. VITTAL SHETTY, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.03.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.89/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT D.K., MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.04.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.7138/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC IV COURT, MANGALURU D.K., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.7138 of 2019 dated 12.04.2022 by the Court of JMFC(IV) Court, Mangaluru and the judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2022 by the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2915 CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act') before the JMFC(IV) Court, Mangaluru in C.C.No.7138 of 2019. It is the case of the respondent / complainant that petitioner and her husband Devendra K had availed a loan of ₹.25,00,000/- from the respondent / society in the year 2015 and towards partial repayment of the amount due under the loan account, the cheque in question bearing No.999071 dated 18.06.2018 for a sum of ₹.10,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Mangalore City Branch was issued in favour of the respondent / complainant. The said cheque, on presentation for realisation was dishonoured by drawee bank with a shara "Funds insufficient". Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice to the petitioner which was duly served and in spite of service of notice, the amount covered under the cheque in question was not paid. Therefore, proceedings was initiated against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2915 CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024 4. To substantiate the case of the respondent / complainant, the Branch Manager of the respondent / society was examined as PW1 and 13 documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. In support of the defence, no oral evidence was led nor was any document got marked. The Trial court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, convicted the petitioner by the impugned judgment and order passed in C.C.No.7138 of 2019 for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced her to pay fine of ₹.11,80,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.7138 of 2019 has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2022 vide judgment dated 14.03.2023 by the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru. It is under the circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the ground urged in the petition submits that, the complainant has not produced any material to prove the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent / complainant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2915 CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024 Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Accordingly, prays to allow this petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and prays to dismiss the petition. 7. It is the case of the respondent / complainant that the petitioner along with her husband had availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the respondent in the year 2015 and towards repayment of loan dues the cheque in question was issued. It is not in dispute that the legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent / complainant to the petitioner after the cheque in question was dishonored, was duly served and the amount covered under the check in question was not repaid by the petitioner in spite of service of the statutory notice on her. 8. The Manager of the respondent / society has been examined in the present case as PW1 to substantiate the case of the respondent. In addition to the oral evidence of PW1, respondent / society has produced 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Ex.P1 is the original of the cheque in question dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2915 CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024 18.06.2018. Signature of the petitioner in the said cheque is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the cheque in question was drawn on the bank account maintained by the petitioner in Vijay Bank, Mangalore City Branch. Therefore, a presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of N.I. Act. Unless the petitioner puts forward a probable defence, the petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner has not put forward any defence before the Courts below nor she had examined any witness before the Trial Court. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent / complainant has not proved the transaction between them and therefore it cannot be said that the cheque in question was issued towards a legally recoverable debt. ExP7 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Society and perusal of the said document would go to show that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondent / Society for recovery of the loan borrowed by her and an award has been passed in the said proceedings holding - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2915 CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024 that the petitioner and her guarantors were jointly liable to pay a sum of ₹.28,08,082/- with interest to the respondent / society. 10. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that execution proceedings initiated by the respondent for executing the award passed as per Ex.P7 is pending consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that transaction between the parties has not been proved by the respondent / society by producing necessary documents. In addition to Ex.P7, Ex.P8 to to Ex.P10 also proves the transaction between the parties. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Courts below are fully justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act since, she had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against her as aforesaid. The order of sentence passed by the Courts below as against her is also just and proportionate. Therefore, I am of the opinion that impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence does not call for interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2915 CRL.RP No. 107 of 2024 The amount deposited by the petitioner, if any before the Trial Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent / complainant. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31