IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.574/2021 BETWEEN:

1 . SMT. P.S. RAJASREE W/O N.V.SREEDHARAN NAMBOOTHRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NARAYANA MANGALATHU ILLAM CHERUKOL VILLAGE KATTOOR POST, RANNY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT KERALA STATE PIN CODE – 689 650. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARTHIK K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. BABY BALAN, ADVOCATE )

AND:

1 . SMT. SHEEBA JAYACHANDRAN W/O JAYACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.16, 2^ND MAIN ROAD KANAKA LAYOUT KADIRENAHALLI BSK II STAGE BENGALURU PIN CODE – 560 070. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.R.BHASKAR, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2020 BY THE HON’BLE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, WHEREIN THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 21.05.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 16TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.313/2016.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.03.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER

1. This revision petition is filed against the judgment passed in C.C.No.313/2016 dated 21.05.2018 wherein revision petitioner is convicted under Section 138 of N.I Act directing to pay fine of Rs.2,25,000/- and in default undergo simple imprisonment and also the order passed in Crl.A.No.1136/2019 dated 11.06.2020 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court that complainant and accused are friends and known to each other and availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 15.04.2011 agreeing to repay the same on or before February-2013 since the accused has not repaid the amount till February- 2013, the complainant demanded for repayment for which the accused issued a Cheque in the month of last week of February-2013 assuring the complainant that the same may be honored, when the Cheque was presented, returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient fund’ and notice was sent and no reply was given and hence, filed the complaint. The Trial Court taken the cognizance and secured the accused and he did not plead guilty and hence, complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked the document Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. The accused not led defense evidence, however, he was subjected to 313 to statement. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused and hence, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court and in the appeal also the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the same. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

3. The main contention of counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the complainant’s husband Sri.Jayachandra also filed the case under Section 138 of N.I Act against the petitioner’s husband in C.C.No.16054/2013 on the file of XXI Addl. And XIX ACMM, Bengaluru city (SCCH-23) for recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- and in that case, the complainant’s husband admitted that he had received in total Rs.7,00,000/- from the petitioner’s husband and petitioner’s husband clearly stated the above said case disputed Cheque was issued by the petitioner for the security purpose of petitioner’s husband loan purpose and the same is misused by the respondent.

4. The counsel would vehemently contend that after full trial, the Court acquitted the petitioner’s husband and dismissed the respondent’s husband case on the ground that amount was repaid which were reflected by the bank’s statement produced by the defense and the respondent preferred an appeal before this Court which is pending for consideration. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the order passed by the