- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:242 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1300 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, BACKWARD CLASS HOSTEL, HALLYMYSORE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573210. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O GIRISHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O PETE, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573211. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJARAM S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.10/2019 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOLENARASIPURA IN C.C.NO.802/2016 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:242 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.802/2016, wherein the revision petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,70,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The Trial Court also ordered to defray an amount of Rs.5,000/- as fine to the State out of Rs.1,70,000/-. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.10/2019 and the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that source of income has not been proved by the complainant for having made the payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. Both the Courts without considering - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:242 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2019 the said aspect wrongly comes to the conclusion and convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the same is erroneous. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issuance of cheque is not disputed and the complainant has been examined and got marked the cheque as Ex.P.1 and other documents at Exs.P.2 to Ex.P.6 have not been rebutted by cross-examining the respondent/complainant. Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error and invoking the provision under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act convicted and sentenced the petitioner to pay the compensation and it does not require any interference. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal of the material on record, the complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and he got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. Ex.P.1 is the cheque and the signature of the petitioner is identified as Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.1(b). The complainant has also produced the endorsement issued by the bank, legal notice, postal receipt and postal cover and none of these documents are disputed by the petitioner before the Trial Court and even not cross-examined the complainant. When such being the case - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:242 CRL.RP No. 1300 of 2019 and when the cheque is placed before the Trial Court and the signature of the petitioner is also identified and marked and procedure has been followed by causing the notice and notice was also duly served to the accused and when the material placed before the Trial Court is not rebutted by the petitioner, there is no any preponderance of probabilities. When such being the case and when concurrent finding is given, in order to invoke the revision jurisdiction no grounds are urged before the Court. Hence, I do not find any material to admit the petition and call for records and no grounds are made out. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30