Karnataka High Court

Smt. Navya Nateshan In T C vs Smt S. Tulasi Bai on 7 July, 2025

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:24435
                                                       CRL.RP No. 938 of 2023


                      HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 938 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                         SMT. NAVYA NATESHAN IN T C
                         D/O MR NATESHAN,
                         AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                         R/AT NO.1266, PARAVATHINILAYAM,
                         VIJINAPURA, NEAR UNION BANK ATM,
                         DOORVANINAGARA POST,
                         BANGALORE-560 016.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. KUMAR DYAVAPATNA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                         SMT S. TULASI BAI
                         W/O BEER BAHADUR SINGH,
                         AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                         R/AT 2ND CROSS, BAZAR STREET,
Digitally signed by      BEHIND TIN FACTORY, UDAYANAGAR,
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI          BANGALORE-560 016.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                         ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
                      (BY SRI. RAJESH RAO K.,ADVOCATE-VC)
                           THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 REAS WITH
                      SECTION 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY
                      SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 29.12.2021
                      PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.25016/2021 BY THE COURT OF THE LVII
                      ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
                      AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2021
                      PASSED IN C.C.NO.50077/2017 BY THE COURT OF THE XXXIV
                      ADDL.C.M.M, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:24435
                                       CRL.RP No. 938 of 2023


HC-KAR



    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                         ORAL ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the

judgment dated 29.12.2021 passed in

Crl.A.No.25016/2021 by the LVII Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the

petitioner by judgment dated 07.01.2024 passed in

C.C.No.50077/2017 by the XXXIV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I Act" for brevity) has

been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the respondent -complainant before

the trial Court is that the petitioner -accused is her friend

and she has approached for financial help for her domestic

NC: 2025:KHC:24435

HC-KAR

purpose and promised to repay the same within 06

months. The complainant has lent amount of

Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand

only) to the petitioner -accused on 07.01.2016. The

accused has issued post dated cheque bearing No.649814

dated 21.06.2016 for Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen

Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) drawn on ING Vysya Bank

Ltd., Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant

presented the said cheque and it came to be dishonoured

for a reason "funds insufficient" on 23.06.2016. The

complainant got issued demand notice dated 04.07.2016

though RPAD and it has been served on the petitioner -

accused on 08.07.2016. The petitioner -accused did not

pay the cheque amount within 15 days. Therefore, the

respondent -complainant has initiated proceedings against

the petitioner -accused for offence punishable under

Section 138 of the N.I Act.

4. The respondent -complainant has been

examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as

NC: 2025:KHC:24435

HC-KAR

Ex.P1 to P5. The statement of the accused has been

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner -

accused has not lead any defence evidence. The trial Court

after hearing arguments on both side and appreciating

evidence on record has convicted the petitioner -accused

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act

and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.16,50,000/- (rupees

Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months.

The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by

the petitioner before the Sessions Court in

Crl.A.No.25016/2021. The said appeal came to be

dismissed on merits and confirmed the judgment of

conviction passed by the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that there are no transactions between the

petitioner and respondent. Two cheques are given by the

petitioner and her sister as security for saree purchase

transaction by her mother from the complainant and said

NC: 2025:KHC:24435

HC-KAR

cheques have been misused by the respondent -

complainant. He further submits that P.W.1 has admitted

in her cross examination that there was transaction

between mother of the petitioner and the respondent -

complainant. That itself establish the defence of the

petitioner -accused. He further submits that there is no

capacity to the respondent -complainant to lend huge

money of Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty

Thousand only). Without considering all these aspects,

learned Magistrate has erred in convicting the petitioner -

accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the

N.I Act and the Appellate Court has failed to re -

appreciate the evidence on record and affirmed the

judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. With

these, he prays to allow the Criminal Revision Petition.

6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

perused impugned judgments and trial Court records.

7. It is specific case of the respondent -

complainant that the petitioner has borrowed amount of

NC: 2025:KHC:24435

HC-KAR

Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand

only) from her on 07.01.2016 and in order to repay the

amount borrowed has issued cheque for Rs.13,50,000/-

(rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) dated

21.06.2016. The issuance of cheque has not been

disputed by the petitioner -accused. As issuance of

cheques is not disputed, the presumption has to be drawn

under Section 139 of the N.I Act that cheque is issued for

discharge of debt. The said presumption is rebuttable

presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the said

presumption is that of preponderance of probability.

8. The petitioner -accused has not issued any

reply to the legal notice got issued by the respondent -

complainant, even though the notice has been served on

her. The defence of the petitioner -accused is that her

mother has purchased saree from the respondent -

complainant and for the said transaction, the petitioner

and her sister have issued cheques as security and they

have been misused by the respondent. Even though

NC: 2025:KHC:24435

HC-KAR

P.W.1 has admitted that the mother of the petitioner has

purchased saree but has denied the suggestion that

cheques are issued by the petitioner and her sister as

security for saree purchase by her mother. The petitioner

-accused has not entered into witness box nor she has

examined her mother. The petitioner has not proved her

defence. Therefore, the presumption drawn under Section

139 of the N.I Act has remained unrebutted. As

presumption is remained unrebutted, there is no need to

the respondent -complainant to prove the transaction.

9. The Honble Apex court in the case of Rajesh

Jain Vs. Ajay Singh1 has held as under;

"55. As rightly contended by the appellant, there is a fundamental flaw in the way both the Courts below have proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record. Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed,

1 reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 807

NC: 2025:KHC:24435

HC-KAR

issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly."

10. Considering above aspects, learned Magistrate

has rightly convicted the petitioner -accused for offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The

Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence on

record and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by

NC: 2025:KHC:24435

HC-KAR

the trial Court. There are no grounds to entertain this

Criminal Revision Petition.

11. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-