- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 476 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SMT. NANDINI S.R.S W/O M.B. PRASAD AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.16/73, 59TH CROSS 4TH BLOCK, RAJAI NAGAR BAGALORE - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH J.R, ADV.) AND: G. VENKATRAMANA S/O SATYANARAYA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. U 38, GROUND FLOOR GANESH BLOCK, 1ST CROSS SHESHADRIPURAM, 1ST MAIN BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANJAY YADAV B, ADV., FOR SRI S. MAHESH, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 4.3.2015 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-8, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.564/2014 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.4.2014 PASSED BY THE XVI A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.51354/2010 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINANT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ACQUITTING THE PETR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The accused is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.51354 of 2010 by the Court of XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, dated 24.04.2014 and the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.564 of 2014 dated 04.03.2015 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC- VIII at Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.51354 of 2010 before the jurisdiction of Court of Magistrate at Bangalore. It is the specific case of the respondent that petitioner had borrowed a hand loan of ₹.15,00,000/- in cash from him and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question dated 31.12.2019 for a sum of ₹.15,00,000/- was issued in his - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 favour. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured on 09.06.2010 with a shara "funds insufficient". It is under these circumstances, a legal notice was issued to the petitioner on behalf of the respondent and since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question in spite of service of notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner before Court in C.C.No.51354 of 2010 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court in response to summons received in said proceedings and had claimed to be tried. To substantiate his case, complainant had examined himself as PW1 and had got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of the defence, petitioner had examined herself as DW1 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. The Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2014, has convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.51354 of 2000 and sentenced her to Pay fine of ₹.15,10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 for a period of two years. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.51354 of 2010 was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2014 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-VIII at Bengaluru by judgment and order dated 04.03.2015. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the cheque in question bearing No.610393 and another cheque bearing No.610394 were forcibly taken from the office of the petitioner by one Rishi Reeva and his friend Somashekar. The said cheques were subsequently presented for realisation through the respondent herein and based on the said cheques, two separate proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.51354 of 2010 and in C.C.No.8339 of 2011. He submits that appreciating the defence of the petitioner she has been acquitted in C.C.No.8339 of 2011 which related to the other cheque bearing No.61034 and the judgment and order of acquittal passed in the said case has attained finality. Under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of impugned judgment and order and submits that transaction in the two cases are totally different and the cheques were issued by the petitioner on different dates. Therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.8339 of 2011 cannot be considered as a basis to set aside the concurrent findings of conviction passed against the petitioner in the present case. He submits that in the present case to prove the transaction the respondent has produced the on demand promissory note executed by the petitioner. He accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition. 7. It is the case of the respondent / complainant that petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹.15,00,000/- from him in cash on 04.12.2009 and towards repayment of the said amount she had issued the cheque bearing No.610393 dated 31.12.2009 for a sum of ₹.15,00,000/-. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 bank with shara "Funds insufficient". Since the petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question, in spite of service of statutory notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against her for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 8. It is the specific defence of the petitioner before the Trial Court that the cheque in question and the other cheque bearing No.610394 were forcibly taken from her office by one Rishi Reeva and his friend Somashankar and in this regard she had submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, which is produced and marked as ExD1. Similar defence was taken by her even in C.C.No.8339 of 2011 which was initiated by the respondent herein against her after the cheque bearing No.610394 was dishonoured which was also drawn in favour of the respondent herein for a sum of ₹.15,00,000/-. 9. The respondent / complainant in both the cases has contended that money was borrowed by him from one Sri Ajay Gupta and Sreenivas and thereafter paid to the petitioner herein. Such a contention by the respondent has been disbelieved, as he had not examined the aforesaid Ajay Gupta - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 or Sreenivas, nor had he produced any other material to show that he had borrowed money from Ajay Gupta and Sreenivas and paid the same to the petitioner. The defence set up by the petitioner in C.C.No.8339 of 2011, which is similar to the defence set up in the present case, has been accepted and the Trial Court in C.C.No.8339 of 2011 has recorded that the presumption that stood against her has been successfully rebutted. The petitioner, in addition to producing her complaint given to the Commissioner of Police as Ex.D1, had also produced other documents including the statement of Rishi Reeva as Ex.D9 in C.C.No.8339 of 2011. 10. In Ex.D1 there is a specific mention that the cheque in question bearing No.610393 and also the cheque bearing No.610394 which was subject matter of C.C.No.8339 of 2011 were forcibly taken by Rishi Reeva and his accomplices on 04.12.2019 and such a defence raised by the petitioner has been accepted by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.8339 of 2011 and the petitioner has been acquitted in the said case in which the respondent herein is the complainant. Undisputedly the judgment and order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.8339 of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 2011 has attained finality. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the defence set up by the petitioner in the present case, more so, in view of the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.8339 of 2011, wherein similar defence was set up by the petitioner. If the defence taken by the petitioner is accepted in C.C.No.8339 of 2011 as a probable defence, I do not find any good reason as to why the said defence also cannot be considered and accepted in the present proceedings as a probable defence. 11. It is trite that in the event the accused put's forward a probable defence, then the presumption that arises against the accused under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act stands rebutted and the burden of proving the transaction automatically shifts on the petitioner. As stated earlier, it is the specific case of the complainant in both the cases that he had borrowed money from Ajay Gupta and Sreenivas and had paid the said amount to the petitioner. The said contention of the petitioner has been disbelieved by the Trial Court in C.C.No.8339 of 2011 for the reason that complainant had not examined the aforesaid Ajay Gupta and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 Sreenivas and not even given the particulars of the said persons. Therefore, even in the present case, it has to be held that respondent has failed to prove that he had paid an amount of ₹.15,00,000/- to the petitioner, after borrowing the money from the aforesaid Ajay Gupta and Sreenivas. 12. Insofar as the contention urged by the respondent that he has produced an on demand promissory note to prove the transaction between the petitioner and respondent is concerned, no such on demand promissory note was produced in C.C.No.8339 of 2011. The proceedings in C.C.No.8339 of 2011 was initiated in respect of a subsequent transaction. If the respondent had obtained an on demand promissory note in respect of the earlier transaction, in normal circumstances, he ought to have obtained an on demand promissory note from the petitioner even in respect of the subsequent transaction. Therefore, it becomes doubtful that the on demand promissory note was executed by the petitioner acknowledging receipt of the amount of ₹.15,00,000/- from the respondent, even otherwise, in C.C.No.8339 of 2011, the defence put forward by the petitioner that the cheques in questions in both the cases - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 were forcibly taken from her by Rishi Reeva and his accomplices has been accepted as probable. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court's below were not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 13. Accordingly the following :- ORDER (i) Criminal revision petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of conviction and C.C.No.51354 of 2010 by the Court of XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, dated 24.04.2014 and the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.564 of 2014 dated 04.03.2015 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-VIII at Bengaluru are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and her bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5550 CRL.RP No. 476 of 2015 (iii) Amount deposited by the respondent, if any, shall be refunded to her. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS