SMT. JAYAMMA B N vs SRI HARISH G K.,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

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



CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 120 OF 2024



BETWEEN:

SMT.JAYAMMA B.N.,
W/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.43, 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE,
4TH BLOCK, J.C.NAGAR,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
…PETITIONER








(BY SRI. V.R.BALARAJ., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. HARISH G.K.,
S/O LATE SRI. KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O GOLENAHALLI, MADENAHALLI POST,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 117.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. CHANDAN B.K., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
17.08.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



J.M.F.C., GUBBI IN C.C.NO.254/2017 AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 07.10.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.61/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER
This is the revision petition filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short, 'Cr.PC') by the revision petitioner/accused
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 17.08.2022 passed in CC No.254/2017 on
the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Gubbi (in short, 'the
trial Court'), which is confirmed in the Criminal appeal
No.61/2022 dated 07.10.2023 on the file of I Addl. District
& Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (in short, 'the appellate
Court').

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:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024




3. The complainant has filed the private complaint
under Section 200 Cr.PC before the trial Court praying for
taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (in short, 'NI
Act') against the accused.

4. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the
offence, registered the case and issued summons to the
accused. After his appearance, the accused pleaded not
guilty of the offence, when the accusation leveled against
him is read over and explained to him .

5. Afterwards, the accused has cross-examined
the complainant and denied the contention of the
complainant in the statement recorded under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. Even though the accused lead in defence
evidence, he failed to cross-examine the complainant.

6. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the
trial Court concluded that the accused has committed the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and
convicted him and sentenced to pay a fine of ` 6,50,000/-;
out of which ` 6,45,000/- shall be payable to the
complainant as compensation and ` 5,000/- shall be
payable towards State expenses.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the
conviction and order of sentence, the accused has
preferred an appeal before the appellate Court.

8. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the
appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the accused is before
this Court.

10. Heard the arguments of both sides.

11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
Sri V.R. Balaraj, would submit that there was no
transaction between the complainant and the accused; it
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



was the chit transaction between the sister of the
complainant by name Shantamma and the accused. The
complainant had no financial capacity to lend ` 5,00,000/-
as alleged in the case. The cheque issued towards security
of chit transaction to the sister of the complainant was
misused by the complainant and filed this false case. The
complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to
show that he was earning ` 50,000/- per month from
agriculture and milk vending. Even though accused has
given reply to the notice, that was not produced by the
complainant and thus there is a grave error in not
producing the reply to legal notice.

12. Even in said reply, the accused has taken
specific contention that two cheques issued to the sister of
complainant towards security to the chit transaction and
one amongst them was misused by the present
complainant and also taken contention regarding the
quarrel between the sister of complainant and the accused
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



and lodging up of criminal complaint by the accused.
These facts were not appreciated by the trial Court and
appellate Court in an appropriate manner. Hence, pray for
allowing the revision petition.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent
Sri Chandan B.K. appeared through VC would submit that
except putting apart suggestion that complainant was not
having financial capacity to lend the amount of
` 5,00,000/-, no evidence is produced by the accused to
rebut the presumptions available in favour of the
complainant. These facts were examined properly by the
trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court.
Furthermore, the accused cannot take the financial
incapacity of the complainant. Accused has admitted his
signature on the cheque and also that cheque was issued
from his bank account. Hence, considering these aspects,
trial Court convicted the accused which is confirmed by the
appellate Court and thus, it requires no interference.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024




14. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the revision petition papers, the point that arises for
consideration:
"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 ?"


15. The finding of this Court on above point is in
'Negative’ for the following:
REASONS

16. 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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



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
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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



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 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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



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 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."

17. 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.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024




18. 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:

(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.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024




19. If the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied,
then there shall be a presumption under section 139 of the
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 Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act are rebuttable
presumptions.

20. 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.

21. The case of complainant before the trial Court is
that accused borrowed a sum of ` 5,00,000/- from the
complainant on 14.10.2016 and to recover the same,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



when complainant demanded for its repayment, the
accused has issued the cheque dated 14.02.2017. When it
was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured
with an endorsement dated 21.02.2017 'funds insufficient'.
Then the accused has issued legal notice dated
10.03.2017 which is served upon the accused as per the
postal endorsements. Then the complainant has presented
the complaint before the trial Court. The accused has not
denied his signature and the cheque and admitted that the
subject cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued from his bank account.

22. When the accused admitted these two facts and
the aforesaid details mentioned above clearly establish
that the complainant has complied with clause No.(iii) to
(vi) of Section 138 of NI Act.

23. When the complainant establishes clause
No.(iii) to (vi) of Section 138 of NI Act, then the
presumptions in favour of complainant shall be drawn as
per Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act. The presumption
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



under Section 139 of NI Act is a statutory presumption.
According to these presumptions, the Court shall presume
that the cheque is issued for consideration, it was issued
on the date mentioned in it; there exists legally
recoverable debt or liability and to discharge the whole or
part of it, the accused has issued the subject cheque.

24. The above presumptions are rebuttable
presumptions. The accused can rebut the presumptions
either by issuing reply to legal notice or by cross
examining the complainant or by leading defence evidence
or by all the above three.

25. In the instant case, the accused contended that
he has given reply to the legal notice. Even in the
judgment at paragraph No.3, the trial Court made an
observation that in the complaint it is stated that the
accused has given evasive reply. However, the reply to
legal notice is not produced either by the complainant or
by the accused. Anyway reply to legal notice is given. The
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



accused has cross-examined the complainant. However,
he has not stepped into witness box.

26. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would submit that the facts which are put forth in the
cross-examination of complainant were narrated in the
reply to legal notice. The complainant was cross-examined
regarding his financial incapacity which is denied by him.
He has deposed that he is getting ` 50,000/- per month
from agriculture and milk vending. Except these
suggestions, nothing more was elicited in the cross-
examination of the complainant to say that accused has
taken the defence of financial incapacity of the
complainant. It is not even suggested to the complainant
that he was not getting such ` 50,000/- income from
agriculture and dairy business. The complainant is not
paying income tax and he volunteered that because his
income is from agriculture and milk vending, he need not
pay income tax. It is a fact that agricultural income is
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



exempted from income tax. According to complainant he
has paid ` 5,00,000/- to accused through cash and he
admitted that, if any transaction above ` 20,000/- is made
then it shall be through cheque but that itself cannot be a
ground to rebut the presumptions in favour of the
complainant. The complainant has examined the financial
capacity of repayment of the accused because he was
working in BSNL office, Basaveshwaranagar and getting
salary of ` 50,000/- per month.

27. The only contention taken by the accused is
that accused was doing chit business with the sister of
complainant by name Shanthamma and towards security
of said chit transaction he has issued two cheques to the
sister of complainant, one of them is misused by the
complainant. However, these suggestions were denied by
the accused in his cross-examination. It is suggested to
the complainant that a criminal case is lodged against the
sister of complainant before Badarahalli Police Station and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



sister of accused has obtained bail in that case for which
the complainant expressed his ignorance. The sister of the
complainant is not summoned by the accused to prove his
above contention. Even though the accused has produced
the copies of FIR and complaint as per Exs.D.1 and D.2,
they cannot be looked into for any purpose because
accused has not faced the cross-examination and he has
not confronted those documents to the complainant.
Hence, as it is, there is no defence evidence on behalf of
the accused. Even though the accused took contention
that he had given reply to the legal notice; he has not
made any efforts to confront said reply notice to the
complainant and not produced the said reply notice in his
evidence. Under these circumstances, the trial Court and
the appellate Court concluded that there is no reply given
by the accused.

28. As discussed above, the presumptions in favour
of the complainant are to be rebutted by the accused with
the standard of proof of preponderance of probabilities and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



not beyond reasonable doubt. As discussed above, except
putting a suggestion that complainant is not having
financial capacity, nothing was elicited in the cross-
examination of complainant. The accused has not
produced any iota of evidence to show that he has issued
the cheque as security to the sister of complainant which
is misused by the complainant.

29. Under these circumstances, considering these
aspects, rightly the trial Court convicted the accused,
which is confirmed by the appellate Court and thus,
requires no interference.

30. As far as imposing sentence is concerned, the
cheque amount was ` 5,00,000/-; whereas the trial Court
imposed fine of ` 6,50,000/- which is not exorbitant
because the transaction is of the year 2017 but the
judgment was passed in the year 2022 and thus, 5 years
period was lapsed in between the period. Hence, there is
no gross violation of principles of law and there is proper
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59785
CRL.RP No. 120 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010029552024



appreciation of evidence by the trial Court which is
confirmed by the appellate Court. Thus, it requires no
interference.

31. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA


(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE



LL,SPV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16