- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8502 CRL.RP No. 157 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 157 OF 2025 BETWEEN: VIJAY R. PAI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE RAMESH V PAI R/AT D. NO.2-78/6 GURUPRASAD SONAL HOMES BEHIND BONDEL CHURCH SCHOOL BONDEL POST, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND: SUREKHA PAI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE SEETHARAMA R/ATSHUBHA KIRAN APARTMENTS 3RD LEFT CROSS, BEJAI KAPIKAD MANGALORE TALUK - 575 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. VINITA J.B, ADV., FOR SRI DEVENDRAPPA, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2024 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO: 84/2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT D.K, MANGALURU, AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C-IV COURT, MANGALURU, D.K DATED 27.02.2024 IN C.C.NO: 844/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8502 CRL.RP No. 157 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Court of JMFC-IV, D.K. Mangaluru, in CC.No.844/2023, and the judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.84/2024 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2024. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. It is the case of the respondent-complainant who is the wife of the petitioner herein that petitioner had obtained hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs from her in the month of January 2020 for his urgent necessity and towards repayment of the said amount, he had issued the cheque in question bearing No.029383 dated 30.11.2022 drawn on Union Bank of India, Rambhavan Complex Branch, Mangaluru, in her favour for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs. The said cheque on presentation for realization was dishonoured by the drawee bank. Thereafter, statutory notice was issued on behalf of the complainant which - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8502 CRL.RP No. 157 of 2025 was duly served on the petitioner. Since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question inspite of service of legal notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In the said proceedings, petitioner had claimed to be tried. 4. The respondent in order to substantiate her case, had examined herself as PW-1 before the Trial Court and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-10. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court after hearing arguments addressed on both sides, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 has convicted the petitioner in CC.No.844/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.6,02,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.84/2024 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, vide judgment and order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8502 CRL.RP No. 157 of 2025 dated 29.11.2024. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 5. The complainant has examined herself before the Trial Court as PW-1 and has got marked 10 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-10. Ex.P-1 is the original cheque belonging to the petitioner and Ex.P-2 is the cheque return memo. Ex.P-3 is the copy of the legal notice and Ex.P-6 is the reply notice issued on behalf of the petitioner. Ex.P-9 is the receipt allegedly issued by the petitioner on 19.05.2022 in favour of the respondent admitting borrowing of money from the respondent and issuing the cheque in question towards repayment of the amount borrowed. 6. In the complaint which is filed before the Trial Court, it is averred that in the month of January 2020, petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs from the respondent and inspite of repeated requests made, he had not repaid the said amount. It is alleged that subsequently on 19.05.2022, he had executed Ex.P-9 receipt/agreement acknowledging borrowing of money from the respondent and issuing the post-dated cheque bearing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8502 CRL.RP No. 157 of 2025 No.029383 dated 30.11.2022 for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs towards repayment of the amount borrowed by him. 7. Perusal of Ex.P-9 would go to show that in the said document, it is mentioned that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from the respondent in the year 2020 and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question dated 30.11.2022 for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. In the complaint as well as in Ex.P-9, it is mentioned that the amount was allegedly paid by the respondent in cash to the petitioner. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, she has admitted that her marriage with the petitioner was not dissolved. She has stated that she had stayed in her matrimonial home till 11.01.2022, and thereafter, she was residing separately. She has admitted that in the month of May 2022, she had filed a police complaint against the petitioner and the police who had summoned the petitioner to the police station had recorded his statement. In the said statement, her husband had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to her towards maintenance. During the course of her cross-examination, she has further stated that petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8502 CRL.RP No. 157 of 2025 had demanded a sum of Rs.6 lakhs from her in the month of December 2019 and since she had no money, she had broken her LIC policy and on 02.01.2020 a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was transferred from her bank account to the account of one Kishore Kumar and the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the petitioner in cash. The said statement of PW-1 is quite contrary to the statement found in Ex.P-9 and also in the private complaint filed by her. 8. It is relevant to note here that petitioner herein has got issued reply notice - Ex.P-6 denying borrowing of any amount from the respondent-complainant who is his wife and also issuance of cheque in question towards repayment of the amount borrowed. On the other hand, he has taken a specific defence before the Trial Court that the cheque in question was issued by him in the police station after he was summoned to the police station in the month of May 2022. PW-1 has admitted that she had given a complaint to the police station in the month of May 2022 and the petitioner was summoned to the police station and his statement was recorded, wherein he has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to her towards - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8502 CRL.RP No. 157 of 2025 maintenance. In Ex.P-9, it is mentioned that petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from her and in addition to that, he was paying a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and therefore, the cheque in question was issued for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs. 9. The contents of Ex.P-9 as well as the admissions of PW-1 during the course of her cross-examination wherein she has admitted that she and her husband were staying separately from 11.01.2022 onwards and in the month of May 2022 she had filed a police complaint against the petitioner in which he was summoned to the police station and his statement was recorded, probablizes the defence of the petitioner, and therefore, I am of the opinion that the presumption that arises against him under Section 139 read with 118 of the N.I.Act was successfully rebutted by him. 10. The respondent-complainant has not produced any material before the court to show that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs from her in the month of January 2020. On the other hand, her statement with regard to the petitioner borrowing money from her is inconsistent in her private complaint, Ex.P-9 and in her cross-examination. Therefore, I - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8502 CRL.RP No. 157 of 2025 am of the opinion that the courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 11. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Court of JMFC-IV, D.K. Mangaluru, in CC.No.844/2023, and the judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.84/2024 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2024, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. His bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. The amount in deposit, if any, either before the Appellate Court or before the Trial Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK