SMT HASSINA BANU W/O SUBAN SHAIK vs SMT DILSHAD BANU W/O LATE M SAIYAD RAZAK
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 06 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100104 OF 2026
(397 CR.P.C./438 BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. HASSINA BANU W/O SUBAN SHAIK
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. WARD NO.18, S.R. NAGAR,
BEHIND NOORANI MASID,
NEAR POOL BAN SCHOOL,
HOSAPETE DISTRICT VIJAYANAGAR 583101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. KEERTI KRISHNAGOUDAR, FOR SRI SRINIVAS B.
NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. DILSHAD BANU W/O LATE M. SAIYAD RAZAK
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. NIL
TH
R/O. 18 WARD, CHAPPARADHALLI,
NEAR THIRUMALA BAKERY,
DHOBHI GHAT ROAD HOSAPETE,
DISTRICT VIJAYANAGAR 583101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE.)
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.16
16:27:56 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, (SECTION 438 READ WITH
SECTION 442 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,
2023), PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET-ASIDE JUDGMENT
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
AND ORDER DATED 03/03/2026, PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.5079/2024, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 20/9/2024 PASSED IN CC NO.919/2022 ON
THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT
HOSAPETE, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR SECTION 138
OF NI ACT, AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed assailing the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2024,
passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Hosapete (‘trial Court’, for short), in C.C.No.919/2022,
which has been confirmed by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Hosapete, Vijayanagara District (‘First
Appellate Court’, for short), in Criminal Appeal
No.5079/2024, by judgment dated 03.03.2026, whereby
the petitioner/accused has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I.Act’, for short) and sentenced
to pay a fine of ₹3,26,000/-, in default she shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years and further it
is ordered that out of ₹3,26,000/-, Rs.3,25,000/- is
ordered to be paid to the complainant towards
compensation and remaining ₹1,000/- is ordered to be
paid to the State towards fine.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred as the
complainant and the accused.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the
complainant and the accused were residing in same
locality since many years. They are well known to each
other. Since 2016 the complainant has been working as a
social worker under NGO for Women and Child Welfare
Department namely Surabhi Mahila Santhwana Kendra at
Hosapete Taluk in Vijayanagara District. The accused
regularly visiting the complainant’s house and she has
helped the complainant in her household work, thereby
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
the accused and the complainant were in good relationship
since many years. With this background, the accused
approached the complainant for financial help and
accordingly, the complainant paid ₹1,50,000/- towards her
domestic needs and for her daughter’s marriage and
thereafter again the accused took financial help from the
complainant in the month of April 2019 in a sum of
₹1,50,000/-. On repeated demands by the complainant
and in order to repay the said amount of ₹3,00,000/-
(Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-), she has issued the
impugned cheque and when the said cheque was
presented for encashment, it was dishonoured with an
endorsement ‘insufficient funds’.
4. The complainant issued legal notice to the
accused, which was served on the accused and the
accused has not replied to the said notice nor repaid the
cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant constrained to
file the complaint.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
5. On filing the complaint, after recording the
sworn statement, the trial Court took the cognizance of
the offence and issued summons to the accused. On
appearance of the accused, as she pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial, the complainant in order to establish her
case, got examined herself as PW1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The accused has also got
examined herself as DW1 and got marked the documents
as Exs.D1 and D2.
6. The trial Court after appreciation of the
evidence on record proceeded to pass the impugned
judgment dated 20.09.2024, whereby the accused has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹3,26,000/-.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment,
the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal
No.5079/2024 before the First Appellate Court. The First
Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the evidence on
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
record, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment,
whereby the appeal preferred by the accused is dismissed,
confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court.
8. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
both the Courts, the petitioner/accused is before this Court
by filing this revision petition.
9. After issuance of notice, the
respondent/complainant entered appearance through
counsel.
10. Trial Court records have been secured.
11. Heard the arguments of Smt.Keerti Krishna
Goudar appearing on behalf of Sri Srinivas B. Naik learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S.Koliwad learned
counsel for the respondent. Perused the original records.
12. The point that arises for consideration of this
Court in this petition is as under:
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
Whether the impugned judgment passed
by both the Courts suffer from any illegality,
infirmity and calls for interference by this
Court?
13. Learned counsel for the accused argued that
the complainant is known to her, the accused took a sum
of ₹1,00,000/- only from the complainant and at the time
of lending amount the complainant took 03 blank cheques
and one promissory note from the accused, the accused
has been paying ₹7,500/- per month and thereby she has
repaid the said amount of ₹1,00,000/-, which was
borrowed by her and the same is written in the book which
is marked as Ex.D1.
14. It is her further defence that, after repayment
of the said sum of ₹1,00,000/- along with interest, the
accused asked the complainant to return the said cheques
to her but the complainant did not return the said
cheques. When the accused along with her husband went
to the complainant and asked about the presentation of
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
the cheque, the complainant told the accused to give
₹3,00,000/- and therefore, the accused has lodged a
complaint to the police against the complainant, which is
marked as Ex.D2. Therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner argued that, both the Courts have not properly
appreciated the defence of the accused and erroneously
convicted her.
15. On the contrary learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant argued that both the Courts after
appreciation of the evidence have rightly convicted the
accused and hence interference is unwarranted.
16. This Court has gone through the evidence on
record. The complainant in order to establish her case, got
examined herself as PW1 and she has deposed in
consonance with the complaint averments. She was cross-
examined by the learned counsel for accused. During the
course of cross-examination, it is suggested that the
accused has borrowed only ₹1,00,000/- and she has
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
repaid the said amount, which is denied by PW1. Further it
is also suggested to PW1 that so far as repayment of the
amount by the accused is concerned, this PW1 has written
the endorsement as per Ex.D1. The said suggestion was
denied by PW1 and the complainant has denied the
endorsement which is mentioned in the small notebook
marked as Ex.D1.
17. It is the specific case of the complainant that, in
the month of January 2018 and in the month of April 2019
the accused borrowed a sum of ₹3,00,000/- (i.e.
₹1,50,000/- on each date) and she has issued the
impugned cheque for repayment of the said amount.
Further the complainant issued notice as per Ex.P3 to the
accused and the accused has received the said notice as
per Ex.P5 acknowledgment, the accused has not replied to
the said notice.
18. It is the defence of the accused that, soon after
receipt of the notice, she approached the complainant, but
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
the complainant demanded ₹3,00,000/- from her,
therefore she lodged a complaint before the police station.
However, the accused has not replied to the said notice.
Even in the statement of accused recorded under Section
313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused has
not explained ‘what has happened’ and only she has
answered, ‘that she has nothing to say’. Now the
petitioner cannot contend that, she has paid the entire
amount to the complainant and the complainant without
returning the cheque has filed a false complaint is
unsustainable.
19. Further, when the accused has received notice
from the complainant, she ought to have replied to the
said notice. Without replying to the said notice, now the
accused cannot contend that she has already repaid the
amount borrowed from the complainant.
20. This aspect is discussed in the judgment of
Ashok Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
AIR 2025 SC 1931 , and the judgment of Kunte Gowda
vs. Thurubaiah , reported in SLP (Crl.)
No.2247/2024 , decided on 04.08.2026 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that, the accused is required to raise
all such contentions at the earliest opportunity, particularly
after receipt of the statutory notice issued by the
complainant and before filing of the complaint. If the
accused has not raised any such contention or defence in
the reply to the legal notice, he cannot subsequently seek
to introduce such a defence during the course of the trial.
21. Mere approaching the complainant soon after
she received the notice and mere filing the police
complaint against the complainant is not sufficient to say
that, the accused has already repaid the amount borrowed
by the complainant. On going through the evidence on
record, the complainant so as to establish the guilt of the
accused has produced the relevant evidence which has
been properly appreciated by both the Courts. In this
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
revision petition, the accused/petitioner has not
substantiated the grounds so as to interfere with the
impugned judgments passed by both the Courts and
thereby, this revision petition is liable to be rejected by
answering the point for consideration accordingly.
22. At this stage, on going through the punishment
imposed by the trial Court, the accused is sentenced to
pay fine of ₹3,26,000/- and out of ₹3,26,000/- it is
ordered to pay ₹3,25,000/- to the complainant towards
compensation and ₹1,000/- is ordered to be paid to the
State towards fine.
23. As the accused took defence that, she has
repaid the amount. Though the accused took defence that,
she had approached the complainant soon after receipt of
the notice from the complainant and she has also filed the
complaint against the complainant, taking into
consideration of this aspect, as the accused could not
properly defend herself and in the facts and circumstances
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16669
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020053912026
of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence
imposed by the trial Court directing the accused to pay
fine of ₹3,26,000/- deserves to be modified. Hence, this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is allowed
in part .
The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 20.09.2024, passed by the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Hosapete, in C.C.No.919/2022, which has been
confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Hosapete, Vijayanagara District, in
Criminal Appeal No.5079/2024, by judgment
dated 03.03.2026, is modified as under:
The accused is directed to pay ₹3,00,000/-
towards fine within a period of three months
from the date of this judgment and the entire
sum of ₹3,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the
complainant towards compensation. In default
the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months and the complainant
is at liberty to proceed as per law.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
MRK CT-CMU, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50