- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1164 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. BHAVYASHREE S W/O NAGENDRA U AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O NO. 615, NEAR DEVEGOWDA PETROL BUNK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MITHUN KUMAR R.B, ADVOCATE) AND: RAGHAVENDRA L C S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA E AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O 44, 1ST CROSS, SHARAVATINAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.85/2024 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Mithun Kumar R.B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddanooru Vishwantha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.639/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’), confirmed in Crl.A.No.85/2024 is the revision petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., was lodged with the Jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by contending that the complainant, accused and her husband by name Nagendra for doing a business and in the business transaction among them, mother of the complainant by name Leela was also involved. During said tenure, the accused and her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the complainant on different dates. Those amounts were accumulated by the complainant by obtaining loan through his credit cards and also from borrowing money from his friend Sundaresh. The accused and her husband invested the said amount in their business and agreed to repay the same within a short span of time. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 4. However, the business could not go on and there was an agreement in that regard on 05.02.2019 whereunder the amount payable by the accused person and her husband was crystallized in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and the same would be paid within a stipulated time. 5. After the agreement, the accused and her husband have issued total four cheques bearing No. 553251 dated 18.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, bearing No.553252 dated 20.03.2020 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, bearing No.553253 dated 21.04.2020 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Banagirinagar Branch, Bengaluru and yet another cheque bearing No.127867 dated 18.11.2019 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru. 6. In the agreement dated 05.02.2019, it has been stated that the accused and her husband undertook to repay the loan obtained by them from banks and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 others. Since the accused failed to make the payment, the complainant demanded repayment of the entire loan amount. 7. The accused also instructed the complainant to present the cheques for collection on 19.11.2019 and cheque bearing No.127867 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- dated 18.11.2019 drawn on Axis Bank was presented which returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 8. Immediately, the complainant approached the accused and her husband by issuing a notice on 21.11.2019 very next day after presentation of dishonour of such cheque. Then the accused and her husband approached the complainant and requested the complainant to represent the cheque for collection. The complainant believing their words, represented the cheque on 20.12.2019 for collection. But again the same got dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 9. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice calling upon the accused to repay the amount. There was no compliance to the callings of notice and therefore, action was sought. On receipt of the complaint, learned Trial Magistrate completed the necessary formalities and recorded the plea. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, the trial was held. 10. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record 18 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P18, comprising of dishonored cheque dated 18.11.2019, legal notice, bank return memo, postal receipt, track consignment, returned postal covers, legal notice dated 07.02.2020 and postal acknowledgements, reply notice dated 12.03.2020, notarised copy of the agreement, postal receipt and copy of the acknowledgment. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 11. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, the accused got examined herself as DW.1 and placed on record seven documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D1 to D7 comprising of statement of account, relevant payments made through IMPS, copy of the acknowledgment, endorsement, letter dated 12.08.2019. 12. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,05,000/- and direct to under to simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl.A.No.85/2024. 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material on record, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.25 to 32 as under. “25. The learned counsel for the accused, in the grounds of appeal and also in the written argument submitted on behalf of accused, contended that, the learned trial court has not considered the repayment of the amount made by the accused by way of cash and also by way of account transfer. Again in the written arguments, the accused has given details of repayment made by her. But, all those repayments and their date goes to show that, it was made during the year 2018 and not subsequent to execution of Ex.P.16 agreement and issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque. As I said earlier, there was business transaction between them and may be in respect of said transaction, those amounts might have been paid and transferred during 2018 by the accused and her husband to the complainant. But there is no evidence to show that, to the issuance of cheque and execution of agreement, any such amount has been paid by the accused or her husband. Therefore, I have to say that, the plea of discharge and theory of repayment of entire cheque amount put forwarded by the accused can not be accepted by this court. 26. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 54 (KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT -VS. DATTATRAYA G HEGDE). It was held in the said decision that, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, raises a presumption that the cheque has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability and existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the case on hand, the complainant is relying upon agreement and other evidence to prove the legally recoverable debt and not on the presumption. 27. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused is a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 39 (M.S.NARAYANA MENON @ MANI -VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER). It was held in the said decision that, though the complainant is required to prove his case with a degree of beyond reasonable doubt, accused can rebut the presumption and substantiate his defence with standard of proof of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, even at the standard of proof of preponderance of probabilities the accused has failed to rebut the presumption and substantiate his case about repayment of the entire cheque amount. 28. The learned trial court, by considering all these aspect, has rightly held the accused as guilty of committing the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. I found no reason to say that, said finding of the trial court is erroneous one. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 29. In this case, Ex.P.1 cheque is dated 18.11.2019. It was presented for encashment subsequently and within stipulated period and endorsement regarding dishonour of the cheque was issued on 22.01.2020, as evident from Ex.P.3. The legal notice as per Ex.P.4 was issued on 07.02.2020 and has been served upon the accused and thereafter, the private complaint was presented before the trial court on 16.03.2020, which is well within the period specified under the Negotiable Instrument Act. 30. The next question, which has to be considered by this court is regarding the punishment and proportionality of the sentence. The learned trial court, after finding the accused as guilty of committing the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, has sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.6,05,000/- and directed the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Out of the fine amount, Rs.6,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as a compensation and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to the state as fine. 31. So far as the sentence of fine imposed by the leaned trial court, there are no grounds for interference. Since the cheque amount is Rs.6,00,000/-, the trial court has rightly sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.6,05,000/-, out of which, cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as a compensation. However, in addition to the payment of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 fine amount, trial court has also directed the accused to undergo simple Imprisonment for one year, which appears to be exorbitant and excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed by the accused. When the chegue amount and additional amount of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed as the fine, there was no need for imposing the sentence of imprisonment to the accused, that too for the period of one year. Therefore, to the extent of imposing the imprisonment of one year, this court has to intervene with the impugned judgment and same has to be set aside. 32. The learned trial court, by appreciating the evidence, facts and law relating to the Negotiable Instrument Act, has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. I found no reason to say that, said finding of the trial court is erroneous one for interference and intervention of this court. So far as sentence of imprisonment is concerned, this court has to interfere and same is liable to be set aside and sentence of fine imposed by the trial court has to be confirmed. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative and Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative.” 15. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused, ignoring the fact that sum of Rs.86,00,000/- has been paid by the accused to the complainant on different dates, which is evident from the statement of accounts placed on record. 17. He would further contend that both the Courts did not take into consideration the probative value of the documents which were placed on record marked at Exs.D1 to D7 and also the probative value of Ex.P18 which is the complaint lodged by the accused against the accused persons. 18. He also contends that the cheque did not carry any legally recoverable debt and in order to extort money from the revision petitioner, and her husband, the complainant forcibly under the threat of suicide extracted the cheque involved in the present case and the cheques which were subject matter of three more complaints - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 pending before the Court at Shivamogga and therefore, there was no proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Thus sought for allowing the revision petitioner. 19. It is further emphasized on behalf of the revision petitioner that on the date of presentation of the cheque by the complainant, the accused was not liable to pay any amount neither accused nor her husband was liable to pay any amount to the complainant inasmuch as already some more Rs.86,00,000/- had been paid by the revision petitioner to the complainant in respect of the business transaction. 20. Therefore, there is a misuse of the cheque on the part of the complainant, which has been specifically stated by the revision petitioner while answering question No.25 while recording the accused statement and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supports the impugned judgments. He would further contend that there is a discussion as to the payments made by the accused both by the trial Court as well as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and thereafter, noted that amount of Rs.6,00,000/- involved in the present case for which Ex.P1 came to be issued has been established by the complainant by placing cogent evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 22. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 23. On such perusal of the material placed on record, it is noted that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 24. Further, according to the complainant, four cheques were issued towards the repayment of the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as referred supra. 25. Among them one of the cheques is Ex.P1. An agreement came to be executed in this regard on 05.02.2019, which is also marked before the Court as Ex.P16. 26. Admittedly, the cheque came to be dishonored and there was no compliance to the callings of the legal notice. Thus, the complainant has discharged the initial burden to raise the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. 27. No doubt such a presumption is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the said presumption, the accused got examined herself as DW.1 and placed on record seven documents as referred to supra. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 28. In her cross examination, she specifically admitted that in Ex.P18 there is no facts mentioned about in para 2 and para 3 of the Ex.P2. She has specifically answered that in Ex.P18 there is only mention about the alleged harassment by the complainant. 29. She further admits that in Ex.P2, there is a mention of Rs.9,46,000/- alone and which is correct. Likewise, mentioning of Rs.16,59,200/- is also correct which is not mentioned which does not find place in Ex.P18. She admits that in Ex.P18 only mention of Rs.8,00,000 as the repayment and no other amount. 30. She also admits that on 19.11.2019, she received the information about the dishonour of the cheque marked at Ex.P1 and thereafter, notice came to be issued by her to the complainant and her mother vide Ex.P2. She admits that in Bank account marked at Ex.D1(a) to 1(z) would amount to some of Rs.19,27,600/-. But in Ex.P2, she has mentioned some of Rs.9,46,000/- - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 alone. Further, she has answered that Ex.P16 was got executed by blackmailing the accused, but no complaint has been lodged by her with regard to the alleged blackmailing. Further, she admits that payment of Rs.19,27,600/- is not mentioned in the income tax returns. She further admits that herself, her husband and complainant together were conducting the business of Q- Net. She admits that in that regard, herself and her husband together borrowed some of Rs.25,00,000/- as the loan for the Q-Net business. 31. These admissions coupled with the oral testimony of PW.1 would be sufficient enough to hold that Ex.P1 carry legally recoverable debt after giving the deduction to the alleged payment of Rs.19,00,000/- is the finding recorded by the Trial Magistrate, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 32. Thus, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no legally recoverable debt under - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20925 CRL.RP No. 1164 of 2025 Ex.P1 cannot be countenanced in law. Moreover, having regard to the limited Revisional Jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJABIJ TARI VS. KISHORE S. BORCAR AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2069. 33. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of conviction recorded by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this revision petition. 34. Hence, the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SSB