- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4996 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.504 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI GOVIND V JATHAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS M/S SRI GANESH TRADERS PROPRIETOR No. B-91, 1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BENGALURU-560058 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.K.L.VARANDANI S/O LATE SRI N B VARANDANI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS No. 306A, AMAR JYOTHI APARTMENTS, JAYANAGAR 7TH BLOCK OPP: YEDDIYUR LAKE KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU – 560028 REP BY SPA HOLDER/SON SRI VISHAL VARANDANI S/O K L VARANDANI …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2020 PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61) IN CRL.A.NO.82/2018 AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4996 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice issued against the respondent was served and he is unrepresented. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order of conviction and passing an order of sentence directing to pay the compensation of Rs.35,000/- and out of that amount, Rs.5,000/- shall vest with the State and remaining amount payable to the complainant. The said order was challenged before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record dismissed the appeal. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant that accused/petitioner had availed the loan from him since both of them are having acquaintance with each other to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and issued ten singed cheques and paid the amount and subject matter of cheque was not honoured - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4996 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2020 with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and notice was given and though legal notice was served on the accused, he did not comply the demand of the complainant and hence complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and he was secured before the Trial Court and accused denied the plea and hence, complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C12 and not led any defence evidence by the petitioner. Hence, he was convicted and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal. 4. The main contention of the petitioner that in the cross-examination he admits that he has taken 11 cheques not 10 cheques hence, it is clear that amount has been cleared but the counsel disputes the fact that only 9 cheques are encashed and 10th cheque was dishonoured. The case of the complainant that he had advanced an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and all the cheques pertains to the liability for an amount of Rs.25,000/- each and though there is an admission on the part of the complainant that he had collected 11 cheques but in the complaint specifically pleaded that he had issued 10 cheques and out of that, 9 cheques were encashed and subject matter - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4996 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2020 of the Cheque was dishonoured. When such being the case, I do not find any error in the order of both the Courts and no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. 5. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN