- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1658 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1381 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. ANJANE GOWDA K.N., S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.344 RAMAMANDIRA ROAD KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU-560092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY C.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESHMURTHY M.C., S/O LATE CHINNAPPA B, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.24 DURGA PARAMESHWARI LAYOUT SOMANNA GARDEN VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560097. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.26997/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII A.C.M.M., Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1658 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2019 BENGALURU BY ITS ORDER DATED 10.01.2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT THE CRL.A.NO.410/2018 BY THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY CCH-60 BY ITS ORDER DATED 12.09.2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel for respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court. Now the counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for remand the matter on the ground that complainant has not been cross examined before the Trial Court. The counsel also submits that the very prayer is also made before the First Appellate Court and the same has not been considered. 3. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that when the complainant was examined he was not cross examined and when the cross- examination was taken as nil, an application is filed before the Trial Court and thrice an application is allowed and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1658 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2019 permitted to cross examine the witness and in spite of it, not cross examined the witness and hence, question of exercising review jurisdiction does not arise. 4. Having heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also taking into note of factual aspects of the case, the specific case of the complainant before the Trial Court that he had advanced the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused in February-2014. In order to pay the said amount, he had issued the Cheque on 10.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the same was presented, it was dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and he was called upon to pay the amount by issuing the notice and notice was returned with an endorsement that door of the house of accused was locked and also notice was also issued through certificate of posting and the same was served on him. The accused did not come forward to pay the amount and complainant also examined before the Trial Court and marked the Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The complainant was not cross-examined before the Trial - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1658 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2019 Court. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also not disputes the fact that he was not cross examined before the Trial Court in spite of opportunity was given and thereafter accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on 17.03.2017 and when such being the case, when the opportunity is not utilized by the petitioner, question of remanding the matter does not arise as contended. In order to remand the matter, if no opportunity was given then there is a force in the contention of the petitioner’s counsel and that is not the circumstances in the case on hand. When opportunity was given and the same was not utilized, then question of remanding the matter does not arise and the complaint was filed in the year 2015 and also a decade has been elapsed and nothing is placed on record rebutting the evidence of complainant and when such being the case, question of invoking the review jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, no grounds to admit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1658 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2019 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38