S RAMAKRISHNA vs SMT MANJULA SRINATH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 884 OF 2024

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1.
S RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YRS,
S/O LATE SUBRAMANYAM,
R/A NO. 139, BETWEEN 8TH AND 9TH CROSS,
MARGOSA ROAD,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560003.
…PETITIONER







(BY SMT. KALPANA P V.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT MANJULA SRINATH
W/O G SRINATH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/A NO. 58, 17TH B MAIN,
5TH PHASE, J P NAGARA,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560078.
…RESPONDENT



(BY SRI. SHAM SUNDAR V S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
11.06.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.25729/2017 BY THE XVI
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND ITS CONFIRMATION BY THE
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LXVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
IN CRL.A.NO.101/2021 AND ACQUIT HIM OF ALL CHARGES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER

1. This is the revision petition filed by the revision
petitioner/accused under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), praying
for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 11.06.2020 passed in C.C.No.25729/2017
on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru (in short, ‘the trial Court’), confirmed in
judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.101/2021, on the file of LXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (in short, ‘the appellate Court’)
and to acquit the accused.

2. The parties would be referred with their ranks,
as they were before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024




3. The complainant has filed the complaint before
the trial Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., praying
for punishing the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (in short 'NI Act').

4. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that
the accused was running a partnership firm of which he,
his wife Smt. Anuradha and one Smt.N.Rashmi
Chakravarthy are the partners. The accused approached
the complainant for a short-term loan. On 28.12.2016,
they have requested for hand loan of ` 13,00,000/- with
simple interest @ 2% per month and promised to return
the amount within 3 months. The complainant has
transferred ` 10,00,000/- by NEFT to the bank account of
Smt. Anuradha-the wife of the accused and ` 3,00,000/- by
way of cheque No.71274 dated 28.12.2016 drawn on
National Co-operative Bank, Jayanagar branch in favour of
Smt.N.Rashmi Chakravarthy. After receipt of the loan
amount, the accused has not repaid the principal as well
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



as interest amount. In view of the persistent demand and
request of the complainant and issuance of legal notice,
finally, the accused acknowledged that he has to pay
` 34,00,000/- and agreed to repay the same on or before
15.04.2017. Thereafter, he has issued the subject cheque
dated 19.08.2017 bearing No.476005 for a sum of
` 7,50,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Malleshwaram Branch
and promised to honour on presentation. When the same
is presented to the banker of the complainant - Bank of
Baroda, J.P.Nagar Branch, it was returned with an
endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 21.08.2017.
Immediately, the complainant contacted the accused and
informed about dishonour of the cheque. The complainant
has issued legal notice dated 08.09.2017 to the accused
through RPAD and ordinary post; both returned unserved
with shara 'door locked' and information was delivered on
11.09.2017 and 12.09.2017. Even then the accused failed
to make the repayment. Hence, the complaint was filed on
10.10.2017.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024




5. After recording sworn statement and service of
summons, the accused appeared and pleaded not guilty of
the offence when the accusation leveled against him was
read over and explained to him. Thereafter, statement of
the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. The
complainant was cross-examined by the learned counsel
for the accused. The accused has not let in any defence
evidence.

6. After hearing arguments, the trial Court came
to the conclusion that, the accused has committed the
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and
sentenced him to pay the fine of ` 7,65,000/- within 1
month; in default to make such payment to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months; out
of fine amount, ` 7,60,000/- shall be payable to the
complainant as compensation and `5,000/- defrayed to the
State .

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, the accused has preferred the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



appeal before the appellate Court. After contest, the said
appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment of
sentence and order of conviction of the trial Court. The
same is under challenge before this Court.

8. Heard arguments of learned counsel for revision
petitioner.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
Smt.P.V.Kalpana would submit that there was no
transaction between the complainant and the accused.
There was transaction between the accused and the
husband of the complainant in respect of ` 34,00,000/-. As
per Ex.C.3, the accused agreed to repay the said
` 34,00,000/- to the husband of the complainant and to
one Smt.Vanaja G Rao. There is no transaction between
the complainant and the accused at any point of time. If
according to the complainant, the amount lent by her was
` 13,00,000/- but why she accepted the cheque only for
` 7,50,000/- is not explained. The documents relating to
alleged transaction between the complainant and the wife
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



of the accused and one Smt. N.Rashmi Chakravathy is not
produced. Under these circumstances, the accused has
rebutted the presumption available in favour of the
complainant. These facts are not appreciated by the trial
Court and the appellant Court in an appropriate manner.
Hence, prayed for allowing the revision petition.

10. Having heard arguments, verifying the revision
petition papers, the trial Court and the appellate Court
records, the point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether the revision petitioner establishes
perversity or grossly erroneousness in the
judgment of the trial Court and appellate Court
or the judgment of the trial Court and appellate
Court is glaringly unreasonable or wholly
unreliable or untenable and the judgment of
the trial Court and appellate Court considered
immaterial or irrelevant material or no material
or non-consideration of any relevant material or
judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously ?"

11. The finding of this Court on above point is in
Negative for the following:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



REASONS

12. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very
limited. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kuntegowda v/s Thurubaiah in Criminal Appeal
No.3654/2026, (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.2247 of 2024 dated 04.08.2026
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485 . In the aforesaid
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.7.1.
to 7.3 has discussed the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court, which reads as follows:
"7.1 This Court, in the State of Maharashtra
vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7
SCC 659 observed that the High Court, in exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an
in-depth roving re-examination of the oral evidence
and medical evidence and come to a conclusion
contrary to the consistent one reached by two
courts below. In the facts of the present case, in
the impugned judgment, the High Court gravely
erred in upsetting the concurrent findings of
conviction of the trial Court and the Appellate Court
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



by substituting its own conclusions and reasoning
on the merits of the case and thereby erred in
setting aside the well-reasoned and correct
judgement and orders of the trial and appellate
courts.
7.2 Upon perusal of the impugned judgment
and order dated 06.10.2023, it is apparent that the
High Court went into great detail into each of the
testimonies, documents and merits of the case
which could have been avoided especially when the
subject matter had come under its revisional
jurisdiction. Instead, acting as an appellate Court,
the High Court deemed it fit to go into the merits of
the case, something which is generally
impermissible unless a glaring contradiction is
apparent on the face of record. In State of Kerala
vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri,
(1999) 2 SCC 452, while considering the scope of
the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this
Court has laid down the following:
"5.... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court can call for and examine the record of
any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In
other words, the jurisdiction is one of
supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But
the said revisional power cannot be equated
with the power of an appellate Court nor can it
be treated even as a second appellate
jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not
be appropriate for the High Court to
reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion on the same when the evidence has
already been appreciated by the Magistrate as
well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless
any glaring feature is brought to the notice of
the High Court which would otherwise
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On
scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the
High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we
have no hesitation to come to the conclusion
that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in
interfering with the conviction of the
Respondent by reappreciating the oral
evidence...."
7.3. The contours for exercise of revisional
jurisdiction has been well settled by the judicial dicta
of this Court wherein time and again it has been
observed that the High Court shall not interfere with
the orders of the lower Court unless:
i. The order or finding of the lower Court is
perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



unreasonable or wholly unreliable or untenable
in law.
ii. The lower Court has passed the impugned
order after considering an immaterial or
irrelevant material or no material at all.
iii. There is a non-consideration of any relevant
material or the judicial discretion has been
exercised arbitrarily or capriciously."


13. Thus, only if the judgment of the trial Court
confirmed by appellate Court is perverse or grossly
erroneous, or grossly unreasonable, or wholly unreliable,
or wholly untenable, or the trial Court considered an
immaterial or irrelevant, material or no material or not at
all relevant material or judicial discretion has been
exercised arbitrarily and capriciously, the revisional Court
can interfere with such judgment.

14. The alleged offence in this case is the offence
under Section 138 of NI Act; to attract the offence under
Section 138 of NI Act, the complainant has to satisfy the
following ingredients:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



(i) that there is legally enforceable debt;
(ii) that the cheque was drawn from the
account of bank for the discharge in whole or in part
of any debt or other liability;
(iii) that the cheque has been presented to the
bank within a period of six months from the date on
which it is drawn or within the period of its validity,
whichever is earlier;
(iv) that cheque so issued has been returned
due to insufficiency of funds;
(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said
amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the
drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt
of information by him from the bank regarding the
return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make
payment of the said amount of money to the payee
or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15
days of the receipt of the said notice.


15. If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied,
then there shall be a presumption under section 139 of the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



N.I. Act. Always, the cheque is a bill of exchange and thus
there shall be a presumption under Section 118 of the NI
Act. There is also statutory presumption under Section 139
of NI Act that there exists legally recoverable debt and the
cheque is issued for recovery of legally recoverable debt
either wholly or in part. But the presumptions available
under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act are rebuttable
presumptions.

16. With this background, the facts of the present
case are to be analysed and to verify whether the trial
Court and the appellate Court have not examined the
records produced by either party or erroneously
appreciated the evidence.

17. On careful perusal of the case of the
complainant before the trial Court and documents
produced by the complainant, it is the case of complainant
that she has transferred ` 10,00,000/- to the account of
the wife of the accused and ` 3,00,000/- to the account of
one Rashmi Chakravathy; the accused, his wife and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



Rashmi Chakravathy are partners of a firm. In respect of
the aforesaid transaction, the subject cheque was issued
for partial payment of ` 7,50,000/-.

18. The cheque is dated 19.08.2017; it was
presented for encashment and returned with an
endorsement 'funds insufficient' dated 21.08.2017. On
08.09.2017, the complainant has issued legal notice to the
accused to his address through RPAD and through ordinary
post, but both are retuned with shara 'door locked.' It
amounts to deemed service. Hence, the complainant has
filed the complaint before the trial Court on 10.10.2017.

19. The accused has not denied his signature on the
cheque and he admitted that the cheque is pertaining to
his bank account. Thus, the clause No.(iii) to (vi) of the
ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act are fulfilled. After
fulfilling clause No.(iii) to (vi) of the ingredients of Section
138 of NI Act are fulfilled, the presumptions under
Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act would be in favour of the
complainant. However, these presumptions are rebuttable
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



presumptions. Thus, the presumption is that the accused
has issued the cheque on 19.08.2017 for consideration
and there exists legally recoverable debt and towards
payment of partial or whole of the said debt, the subject
cheque was issued.

20. The accused can rebut the presumptions either
by issuing reply to the legal notice or by cross-examining
the complainant or by leading his defence evidence or by
all the above.

21. Admittedly, in this case, the accused has not let
in evidence and not given reply to the legal notice but only
cross-examined the complainant. The accused places
reliance on Ex.C.3 much to say that there was transaction
between the husband of the complainant and the accused
has to repay ` 34,00,000/- to the husband of the
complainant and not to the complainant and there is no
transaction between them.

22. Ex.C.3 was the notice given by the accused
dated 04.04.2017 through the advocate by name
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



V.Shankar acknowledging that, the accused has to pay
` 34,00,000/- to the husband of complainant and he
assured to pay it on or before 15.04.2017. However, he
has not paid it within that period. Hence, the subject
cheque was issued by him.

23. In the cross-examination, the financial capacity
of the complainant was questioned for which she has given
an appropriate answer that, her annual income is
` 16,00,000/- and every year she is submitting her IT
returns. These facts are not disputed by the accused. Even
though, the complainant has not produced documents to
show that ` 10,00,000/- and ` 3,00,000/- were transferred
to the bank account of the wife of the complainant and his
partner, but this fact is not seriously disputed by the
accused while cross-examining the complainant. Even in
the legal notice as per Ex.C.5, it is clearly stated that the
loan amount was received by the wife of the accused but
as the accused has issued the cheque agreeing to repay
the amount, the notice was issued to him. It is stated that,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024



the accused is issuing the cheques and they were being
dishonoured; as per his request, legal actions were not
taken; the accused was in the habit of issuing succeeding
cheques which were also being dishonoured. These facts
are not in serious dispute.

24. It is suggested to the complainant that the
cheque given by the accused to his friend was misused
and concocted in this case, which is denied by the
complainant. However, this is a vague suggestion. The
name of the friend of the accused and on what
circumstances he has issued the said cheque to his friend
is not explained by the accused. It is elicited in the cross-
examination of the complainant that the subject cheque is
in respect of a portion of the amount due by the accused
under Ex.C.3. It is not in dispute that, the complainant has
given the amount and the accused has issued the cheque.
The above evidence of the complainant does not reveal
that the accused has rebutted the presumptions available
in favour of the complainant.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57490
CRL.RP No. 884 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010373302024




25. Considering these aspects, rightly the trial Court
convicted the accused which is confirmed in the appellate
Court. Thus, the judgment of trial Court and appellate
Court are not erroneous and in accordance with law and
thus, requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction.

26. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Digitally Signed By:

K B GEETHA

(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE









SPV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25