IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1263 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

SMT. B RAJESHWARI, W/O KARTHIK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO 31, NEW NO 62/1, 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560 003.

AND ALSO AT VIDYANAGAR CROSS, BETTHALASURU, HANCHE POST, BEHIND GOVERNEMNT SCHOOL, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 057.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O KRISHNAPPA, Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, by ANUSHA V R/AT NO 31, NEW NO 62/1, Location : High 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, Court of VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560 003.

Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XV A.C.M.M, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.18228/2017 AND THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION DATED 05/12.06.2023 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.102/2022 BY ALLOWING THIS RP AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment dated 05.06.2023 passed by LIX Additional City Civil and Session Judge (CCH-60), Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.102/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2021 passed by XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.no.18228/2017, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Gururaj Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that proceedings were initiated on a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) by respondent (complainant) alleging that complainant was working as cook and accused was running Chit Fund business in shop premises on Ground Floor of her residence. Since accused had represented to her that she had registered license to run Chit Fund business and requested her to become a Member, she had subscribed to Chit commencing on 10.02.2013 on monthly subscription amount of Rs.10,000/- for duration of 50 months.

It was further submitted that complainant had paid monthly subscriptions every month without delay and Chit ended in February, 2017 and accused was liable to pay her Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. On demand, accused had issued cheque bearing no.230318 dated 15.03.2017 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Vyalikaval Branch, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, for Rs.5,00,000/- in her favour. But on presentation, said cheque got dishonored, returned with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 17.04.2017 and thereafter demand notice dated 19.04.2017 got issued by complainant by RPAD, returned with postal shara as 'not claimed' on 18.05.2017. By failing to repay amount within time, accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused had disputed charges and sought trial. Complainant was thereafter examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exhibits-P1 to P8. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which she denied and her statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Accused thereafter led defence evidence by examining herself as DW.1 and got marked one document as Exhibit-D1.

5. It was submitted, though in cross-examination of PW.1 as well as in her deposition, accused had set-up substantial defence, firstly, contending that filing of private complaint was not preceded with service of demand notice, trial Court had presumed service based on cover returning as 'not claimed' without noticing fact that address of complainant and accused were one and same. And in cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that accused had vacated house. Apart from above, accused had also disputed transaction contending that cheque was stolen etc. Without proper appreciation of said contentions which would be sufficient to upset presumption available to