IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1293 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

SMT LATHA B M W/O MAHESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT BLOCK 48, INCOME TAX COLONY, HMT WATCH FACTORY, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 013.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH U. T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI N NAGESH S/O LATE V NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, Digitally NO. 118, 2ND MAIN ROAD, signed by

9TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET MALATESH BENGALURU - 560018.

K C Location:

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY L.RS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1(a) SMT.B.V.MANJULA W/O LATE N.NAGESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

1(b) SMT.INDU.N D/O LATE N.NAGESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.118

2^ND MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE – 560 018 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.KASINAGALINGAM, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.3703/2019 DATED 04.03.2022 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN THE CRL.A.NO.494/2022 PASSED BY THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61) ON 31.08.2023 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Prashanth U.T., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S. Kasinagalingam, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.3703/2019, on the file Small Causes and ACMM., at Bengaluru, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, confirmed in Crl.A.No.494/2022, on the file of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1. A private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be lodged by the complainant against the accused alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused and complainant are well acquainted to each other and accused borrowed sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in the second week of October 2018 with a promise to repay the same within a period of six months.

3.2. Towards discharge of the said loan amount, Cheque bearing No.527327, dated 14.04.2019 in a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was issued by the accused drawn on Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bengaluru which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

3.3. A statutory notice dated 16.05.2019 was issued calling upon the accused to make payment covered under the cheque. The same was sent through registered post acknowledgement due. Despite the service of the said notice on 03.06.2019 there was no compliance to the callings of notice nor there was any reply. Therefore, the complainant sought for necessary action against the accused.

4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities summoned the accused and recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record nine documents which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9, comprising of dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal receipts, postal acknowledgment, letter addressed to post office, track consignment report and statement of account.

6. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got herself examined as D.W.1 and one witness E.Maheshwara as D.W.2.

7. Learned Trial Magistrate after recording the evidence of the parties, on cumulative analysis of the material on record noted that the oral evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 was not sufficient enough to revert the presumption available to the complainant under Section 13