IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1290 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

BETWEEN: MRS DEEPA AGED 36 YEARS W/O VISHWANATH, R/AT PRATHVI NIVASA, NEAR PUNARURU TEMPLE TALIPADY VILLAGE, KINNIGOLI MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT- 574150 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS. RAJALAXMI Digitally signed AGED 44 YEARS by W/O RAMACHANDRA UDUPA SHARADAVANI B R/AT 1-353/1, UDUPA HOUSE, Location: High Court of MOODUSHEDDE, THRIRUVAIL Karnataka VAMANJOOR, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT- 575028 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.08.2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 154/2025 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT D.K.. MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED IN C.C. NO. 115/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C. IX COURT MANGALURU, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment of conviction and sentence dated

27.02.2025 passed by JMFC IX Court, Mangaluru, D.K., in C.C.no.115/2022 and confirmed in judgment dated 02.08.2025 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.no.154/2025, this Revision Petition is filed.

2. Sri S.Rajashekar, learned counsel for petitioner -

accused submitted that Revision Petition was filed against concurrent erroneous findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. ACT). It was submitted that respondent - complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from complainant on different dates in month of September and November 2021 in cash as accused was facing shortage of funds for completion of construction. It was assured by accused that loan amount would be returned within six months with interest at rate of 1% per month and a promissory note was also executed in favour of complainant. Thereafter further sum of Rs.64,400/- was borrowed at time of house warming ceremony in January 2022 promising that said amount would be repaid within two months. On failure to make repayment, when complainant approached accused, he had issued cheque bearing no.000002 dated 29.08.2022 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bajpe Branch, Mangalore for Rs.8,86,400/- in favour of complainant, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' on 29.08.2022 and thereafter complainant had got issued a demand notice dated 07.09.2022, which was served on accused on 08.09.2022, accused had failed to make repayment or reply to notice, thereby committed offence punishable under Section

138 of N.I. Act.

3. It was submitted that on appearance accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Thereafter incriminating material was explained to accused which was denied as false. Thus, her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter accused got examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D13.

4. It was submitted despite accused having established substantial defence, both Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court without proper consideration had proceeded to convict accused. It was submitted impugned judgments suffered from perversity and called for interference.

5. It was firstly submitted, complainant had failed to disclose particulars of amounts lent to accused, such as dates on which money was lent,