IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1558 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SMT. SHASHIKALA S., D/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 1939, EWS 9^TH 'B' CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

…PETITIONER [BY SRI B VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:

SMT. ARUNA DEVI A., W/O SRI SAGAYARAJ R., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. NO.8, 'R' BLOCK, ABBAIAH GARDEN, CHENNASANDRA, Digitally signed by KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU-560 067.

GEETHAKUMARI …RESPONDENT PARLATTAYA S Location: Hi gh THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W Court of Karnataka 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE BOTH THE JUDGEMENTS PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) IN CRL.A.NO.1347/2023 DTD 18.07.2025 AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE XVI ACMM, BENGALURU CITY AND C/C OF XV ACMM, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.9581/2019 DTD 18.08.2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND THEREBY TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

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 18.07.2025 passed by LXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69) in Crl.A.no.1347/2025 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2023 passed by XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City & C/C of XV ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.no.9581/2019, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri B Vijay Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). 3. It was submitted, on an allegation that respondent (complainant) and petitioner (accused) were known to each other and accused had subscribed for two chits for Rs.2,00,000/- and two chits for Rs.1,50,000/-, was successful bidder said chits on 20.10.2016 and received chit amount of Rs.4,64,500/-, but was required to pay balance of Rs.4,10,500/- which he failed to pay. And on demand, had issued cheque no.860320 for Rs.4,10,500/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Madhavanagara Branch, Bengaluru, dated 27.03.2019, which when presented for collection through complainant's bank i.e., State Bank of India, Madhavanagar Branch, Bengaluru, on 28.03.2019 returned dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. And thereafter, though complainant got issued demand notice to accused on 29.03.2019, which was served on 05.04.2019, failed to comply and issued false reply thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Act, and filed complaint under Section

200 of Cr.P.C. registered as CC no.9581/2019.

4. It was submitted, accused appeared before trial Court denied allegations and sought to be tried. Thereafter, trial Court recorded evidence of complainant and two other witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P19. On appraisal of incriminating material which accused denied, same was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It was submitted, since accused had set up probable defence and substantiate same in cross-examination of complainant and his witnesses, he did not lead any rebuttal evidence.

5. It was firstly submitted, chit transaction admitted by accused was of year 2014 and chit amount was already paid. Therefore, there was no subsisting legally enforceable debt. It was further submitted, complainant was running chit fund business without licence. Further, two complaints were filed on identical terms, without explaining whether there were two separate transactions or stating that filing of single complaint was in respect of two related transactions. It was submitted, in cross-examination, complainant a