Karnataka High Court

Sangeetha Narayan vs Sri C Raghavendra on 7 July, 2025

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                            -1-
                                                      NC: 2025:KHC:24447
                                                  CRL.RP No. 666 of 2022


                 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. 666 OF 2022


                BETWEEN:

                    SANGEETHA NARAYAN
                    D/O K S LAKSHMINARAYAN
                    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                    PROPRIETRIX STUDIO-S
                    No.255, GROUND FLOOR
                    4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
                    NEW THIPPASANDRA
                    BANGALORE - 560 075.

                    AND ALSO AT:
                    STUDIO-S, No.13, 16TH CROSS
                    KAGGADASAPURA MAIN ROAD
                    BANGALORE - 560 066.

Digitally signed by
                                                         ...PETITIONER
LAKSHMINARAYANA (BY SRI GIRISH S, ADVOCATE)
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA           AND:

                    SRI C RAGHAVENDRA
                    S/O YATHIRAJU
                    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                    R/AT, B-405
                    PAVITHRA ROYAL PALMS
                    11TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN
                    MARUTHI NAGARA
                    MALLESHPALYA
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:24447
                                         CRL.RP No. 666 of 2022


HC-KAR




    NEW THIPPASANDRA POST
    BANGALORE - 560 075.
                                                 ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. SRAH VERONICA, FOR
    SRI A MUNIREDDY, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.05.2020, PASSED IN C.C.No.54173/2018, BY XXXIV
A.C.M.M, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I ACT AND
SENTENCING PETITIONER TO PAY A FINE AMOUNT OF
RS.3,35,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO A S.I FOR
THREE MONTHS, AND CONFIRMING THE SAME BY LXXIII
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL,
BENGALURU IN CRL.A.No.25122/2020, DATED 07.03.2022 BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRL.RP AND PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CASE AND ETC.,

    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 07.03.2022 passed in

Crl.A.No.25122/2020 by the LXXIII Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the

petitioner by judgment dated 18.05.2020 passed in

C.C.No.54173/2018 by the XXXIV Additional Chief

NC: 2025:KHC:24447

HC-KAR

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 was

personally known to him. The petitioner -accused

approached the respondent -complainant during the first

week of August -2016 and asked hand loan of

Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Tow Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) for

her urgent business commitments and promised to repay

the same within a year. The respondent -complainant has

paid Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Tow Lakhs Fifty Thousand

only) on 17.08.2016 in cash. The petitioner -accused

failed to repay the amount borrowed even after one year

as agreed. On insist, the petitioner has issued cheque

NC: 2025:KHC:24447

HC-KAR

bearing No.000036 dated 25.09.2017 for Rs.2,50,000/-

(rupees Tow Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) drawn on HDFC

Bank, Tippasandra Branch. The complainant presented

the said cheque and it came to be dishonoured for a

reason "payment stopped" under bank memo dated

04.11.2017. The complainant got issued demand notice

dated 25.11.2017 calling upon the petitioner to pay the

cheque amount. The notice has been duly served on the

petitioner -accused on 29.11.2017. But the petitioner -

accused has not paid cheque amount within 15 days.

Therefore, the respondent -complainant has initiated

proceedings against the petitioner -complainant for

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

4. The respondent -complainant in order to prove

his case has been examined himself as P.W.1 and got

marked documents as Ex.P1 to P8. The statement of the

accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner -accused has been examined as D.W.1 and

NC: 2025:KHC:24447

HC-KAR

got marked documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. 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.3,35,000/- (rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Five 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.25122/2020. 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 one Sri Preetham Reddy has borrowed

money from the respondent -complainant and for the said

transaction, the petitioner has issued cheque for security

and it has been misused by the respondent -complainant.

The said aspect has been put forth in the reply notice -

NC: 2025:KHC:24447

HC-KAR

Ex.P8. The petitioner has produced her bank account

statement to establish that she has paid money to the wife

and her sister of the respondent. The petitioner has filed

complaint against the Preetham Reddy and she did not

peruse the same. 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 -accused has borrowed

Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) on

17.08.2016 and in order to repay the same has issued

cheque -Ex.P1 for Rs.2,50,000/-(rupees Two Lakhs Fifty

NC: 2025:KHC:24447

HC-KAR

Thousand only). The petitioner -accused who has been

examined as D.W.1 has admitted her signature on the

cheque -Ex.P1 and it is drawn on her bank. As signature

on the cheque is admitted, the presumption has to be

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

issued for discharge of debt. The said presumption is

rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof for

rebutting the said presumption is that preponderance of

probability.

8. The petitioner -accused has issued reply notice

as per Ex.P8 to the notice got issued by the respondent -

complainant. In Ex.P8, the petitioner -accused has taken

the defence that amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees Two

Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) has been borrowed by Mr.

Preetham Reddy who is mutual friend of respondent and

petitioner and for the said transaction she gave cheque -

Ex.P1 as security. Even though, the defence is taken in

reply notice has not been put to P.W.1 in cross

NC: 2025:KHC:24447

HC-KAR

examination. The petitioner -accused who has been

examined as D.W.1 has stated the said defence in her

evidence and same has been denied by the respondent -

complainant in the cross examination. The petitioner has

not choosen to examine the said Sri Preetham Reddy.

9. Considering materials on record, the petitioner

-accused has failed to rebut the presumption drawn under

Section 139 of the N.I Act. As presumption is remained

unrebuttable, the respondent -complainant need not to

prove the transaction.

10. The Honble Apex court in the case of Rajesh

Jain Vs. Ajay Singh1has 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

1 reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 807

NC: 2025:KHC:24447

HC-KAR

Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, 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."

11. Considering above aspects, learned Magistrate

has rightly convicted the petitioner -accused for offence

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

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24447

HC-KAR

Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence on

record and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by

the trial Court. There are no grounds to entertain this

Criminal Revision Petition.

12. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is

dismissed.