Karnataka High Court
Smt Baghyamma vs Smt Charitha Narayan on 11 July, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 197 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT BAGHYAMMA
W/O. RAMA KRISHNA,
AGED ABUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 839/1080,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
MARUTHI NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI,
MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed(BY SRI. HARISH BABU K N., ADVOCATE)
by AND:
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR 1. SMT CHARITHA NARAYAN
DESAI
W/O. NARAYAN,
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT NO. 16, B.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT,
VIJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ROSHAN H.C.., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER PASSED ON 29.09.2015 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT BY LEARNED XXII ADDITIONAL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
CRL.RP No. 197 of 2018
HC-KAR
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN
C.C.NO.5115/2014, THE CONVICTION ORDER GOT CONFIRMED
BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH-53), IN CRI.APPEAL NO.1329/2015 ON
02.12.2017 AND ETC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the
judgment dated 02.12.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.1329/2015
by LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
whereunder judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2015
passed in C.C.No.5115/2014 by XXII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru convicting the
petitioner-accused for offences punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been affirmed and
fine of Rs.3,02,000/- has been reduced to Rs.1,52,000/-.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent.
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
3. The case of respondent-complainant before the
trial Court was that, the petitioner-accused had purchased
the property of the respondent-complainant on
03.09.2012. At the time of registration, there was a short
fall of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner-accused requested
the respondent-complainant to accept cheque of
Rs.1,50,000/- which is post dated cheque bearing
No.449934 dated 20.02.2013 drawn on Canara Bank,
Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru and assured that
petitioner-accused would pay back the amount
immediately after dhanurmasa. The petitioner-accused
did not meet the respondent-complainant for several
months. During January-2013, when respondent-
complainant met the petitioner-accused, the petitioner-
accused directed the respondent-complainant to present
the cheque. When, the respondent-complainant presented
the said cheque for encashment, it came to be dishonored
with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer' vide
memo dated 28.02.2013. The respondent-complainant
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
got issued legal notice on 23.03.2013 to the petitioner-
accused calling upon the petitioner-accused to pay the
cheque amount. The said notice has been returned with a
postal shara 'unclaimed'. Inspite of the said legal notice,
as the petitioner-accused not paid the cheque within
15 days, the respondent-complainant has initiated the
proceedings against the petitioner-accused for the
offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
4. The respondent - complainant was examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. The Bank Manager was
examined as PW2 and produced Ex.P6 - Bank account
statement. Thereafter, PW1 was recalled and Ex.P7 has
been marked. Ex.D1 has been marked in cross-
examination of PW1. The statement of the accused under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused
did not lead defense evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
5. Learned Magistrate after appreciating the
evidence on record, has convicted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-
and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two
months and awarded payment of compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- which is double the cheque amount. In
default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year.
6. The petitioner-accused challenged the said
judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the
Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.1329/2015 and the said appeal
came to be allowed in-part confirming the conviction of the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and order of sentence has
been modified and the petitioner has been sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs.1,52,000/- and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment of three months and out of the fine
amount, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has to be paid to the
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
respondent as compensation. The petitioner has
challenged the said judgment by filing this revision
petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that, sale transaction between the petitioner and
the respondent has been concluded on 03.09.2012 as per
Ex.D1 - sale deed and in it there is specific mention that
the entire consideration has been paid and no amount is
due. The cheque - Ex.P1 given as security prior to the
registration of sale deed has not been returned.
8. The petitioner - accused did not give reply to
the legal notice as it has not been served and it is returned
as 'unclaimed'. Statement of the petitioner - accused has
been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after evidence
of PW1 and subsequently PW1 has been recalled and
thereafter, further Section 313 statement has not been
recorded.
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
9. The petitioner - accused had earlier submitted
that, no defense evidence after Section 313 statement and
subsequently, the petitioner - accused has not been given
opportunity to lead defense evidence. The petitioner -
accused has sought for remanding the matter before the
appellate Court to lead defense evidence. Without
considering the same, the impugned judgment has been
passed. With these, he prays to allow this revision petition
and acquit the petitioner - accused.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent -
complainant would contend that, as per the sale
agreement - Ex.P7, sale consideration was Rs.52,00,000/-
and part payment has been made prior to the registration
of sale deed - Ex.D1. He further submit that, at the time
of sale deed - Ex.D1, a cheque has been issued stating
that, there is a short of Rs.1,50,000/- and it is a post
dated cheque. Considering the averments of Ex.P7 - sale
agreement and Ex.D1 - sale deed, the petitioner - accused
is due for the cheque amount. The petitioner - accused
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
has not proved his defense and failed to rebut the
presumption drawn under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Considering the same, the trial Court
has convicted the petitioner - accused and trial Court has
affirmed the conviction.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, perused the impugned judgment and trial Court
records.
12. It is a specific case of the respondent -
complainant that there was a sale transaction between the
petitioner - accused and respondent - complainant and the
sale agreement came to be entered into by them on
06.06.2012 as per Ex.P7 for sale consideration of
Rs.52,00,000/- and sale deed came to be registered as per
Ex.D1 on 03.09.2012 for Rs.18,00,000/-. At the time of
sale agreement - Ex.P7, advance amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid and same is mentioned in
the sale agreement. Subsequently, Rs.12,00,000/- has
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
been paid by cash on 24.08.2012 and the same has been
endorsed on the back of first page of the sale agreement -
Ex.P7. The respondent-complainant has deposited the
said cash of Rs.12,00,000/- in her bank account with the
Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd., and the Bank account
statement - Ex.P6 produced by PW2 indicate that, she has
deposited Rs.12,00,000/- in her account on 24.08.2012.
13. As on the date of registration of sale deed,
Rs.8,00,000/- has been paid by way of Demand Draft
dated 03.09.2012 and taken into consideration that
payment of Rs.10,00,000/- made through cheque dated
06.06.2012 bearing No.704244 which is mentioned in
Ex.P7 - sale agreement. Even though, the sale agreement
is for Rs.52,00,000/-, sale deed has been registered for
Rs.18,00,000/-.
14. The contention of the respondent - complainant
that there was a balance amount to be paid by the
petitioner to the respondent and for that, a cheque - Ex.P1
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
has been issued. The petitioner - accused has not disputed
issuance of cheque as per Ex.P1 and the defense of the
petitioner - accused that, cheque has been given prior to
sale deed - Ex.D1 as a security for balance amount has
not been established.
15. Considering these aspects, the learned
Magistrate has rightly convicted the petitioner - accused
for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and the appellate Court has rightly re-
appreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the
petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
16. The petitioner - accused after further cross-
examination of PW1 did not make any prayer for leading
defense evidence.
17. Earlier, after recording Section 313 statement,
the petitioner - accused has submitted that, she had no
defense evidence. Therefore, the contention of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25494
HC-KAR
petitioner - accused that no opportunity was provided for
leading defense evidence cannot be accepted.
18. The appellate Court has reduced the
fine/compensation and the said order of reduction of
fine/compensation has not been challenged by the
respondent - complainant. Therefore, the said order of
reduction of fine/compensation requires to be retained.
19. Considering all these aspects, there are no
grounds to allow this revision petition and acquit the
petitioner - accused. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition
is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
KLV
