- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 112 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. G.T. RANGANATHA SHARMA, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT MELINA GOLGODU, KHANDIKA SGARA (T), SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401 1. ALSO AT C/O AARATHI ENTERPRISES MARKET ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401. 2. C/O ARATHI ENTERPRISES NO. 61, 2ND CROSS CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560 098. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SUDHA G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. MUNIRATHNAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 41, "RENUKA NILAYA", GROUND FLOOR, 7TH 'B' CROSS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 MUTHYALANAGARA BANDEPPA GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 054. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED 12TH ADDL.C.M.M COURT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.29703/2017 DATED 01.09.2021. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging concurrent judgments dated 01.09.2021 passed in CC.No.29703/2017 by the Court of XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and dated 14.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.728/2021 by the Court of the XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH- 65), Bengaluru, this revision petition is filed. 2. Smt Sudha G, learned counsel appearing for Sri.A M Balaji, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that present proceedings arise out of private complaint - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 filed by respondent/complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that complainant was a civil contractor and accused had approached him for construction of a building at Kempapura Agrahara, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru in site bearing no.6 belonging to one Sri S R Hegde as per joint development agreement. Accused and complainant had entered into construction agreement on 30.08.2016. Complainant had constructed upto first floor by investing more than Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three lakhs only), but accused has paid only Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). Accused had assured complainant of payment and coaxed him for construction. Due to non-payment, construction was stopped and complainant had requested for payment of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs only). On 22.08.2017, accused issued cheque no.207052 for sum of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, Sagara Branch which when presented, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 24.08.2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 Thereafter, complainant intimated same to accused, he asked complainant to re-present cheque and therefore, cheque was re-presented on 26.09.2017 and dishonoured with same endorsement on 27.09.2017. Thereafter, demand notice dated 19.10.2017 was got issued by complainant. However, same returned with postal shara 'no such person'. Since accused failed to repay amount within time, offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was committed. 3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Therefore, complainant entered witness box as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P11. It was submitted that thereafter, matter was listed for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On appraisal of incriminating material which was denied, his statement was recorded. Thereafter, matter was set for defence evidence. At that stage, Covid 19 pandemic struck and an application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling of PW.1 for cross examination. Same - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 was rejected and without providing opportunity, impugned judgment came to be passed convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. Even appeal filed therein against them was dismissed without proper consideration of facts and circumstances of case as well as application for recalling of PW.1 for cross examination which was filed, but rejected. 4. Under above circumstances, impugned judgments suffered from illegality insofar as denial of adequate opportunity to accused. On said grounds, sought for allowing revision. 5. On other hand, Sri S R Hegde, learned counsel for respondent opposes petition. It was submitted that prior to rejection of application for recalling of PW.1, trial Court had allowed similar applications twice on costs. Yet opportunity was not utilized and therefore, impugned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 judgment by Trial Court was justified and did not call for interference. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments. 7. This revision petition is by accused assailing concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Sole ground urged is denial of opportunity to accused to cross-examine PW.1. 8. Perusal of order sheet of trial Court would indicate that sworn statement of complainant was recorded on 08.12.2017. Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked. Thereafter, matter was adjourned on umpteen number of dates to secure presence of accused. 9. On 03.07.2018, plea was recorded and since sworn statement was treated as examination-in-chief, an application was filed by accused for recalling of PW.1 for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 cross-examination and same was allowed. Thereafter on 18.01.2019, 18.02.2019, 21.02.2019, 22.02.2019, 13.03.2019, 20.03.2019 and 02.04.2019, matter was adjourned. On 23.04.2019, cross of PW.1 was taken as 'nil' and due to absence of accused, NBW was issued. On 06.05.2019, 06.06.2019, 23.07.2019, 22.08.2019, 23.09.2019, matter was adjourned. On 08.11.2019, order of issuance of NBW was recalled and on 20.11.2019, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Again the matter was adjourned on 03.12.2019, 11.12.2019 and 30.12.2019. On 03.01.2020, application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of PW.1 was allowed on cost. Thereafter, once again matter was adjourned on 04.01.2020 and on 20.01.2020 cross- examination of PW.1 was taken as 'nil'. On 11.02.2020, yet another application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was allowed on heavier cost. But there was no cross- examination. Therefore, on 10.03.2020, cross of PW.1 was taken as 'nil' and matter was posted for argument. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 Though thereafter, there was prevalence of Covid 19 pandemic and SOP was in force, matter was adjourned on eight (8) occasions for argument. On eighth instance, third application for recalling of PW.1 was filed. After rejecting same by reasoned order, matter was proceeded with and impugned judgment came to be passed. Main reason for rejection of application was that sufficient opportunity was provided but not utilized. 10. Above narration would leave no doubt in my mind that sufficient opportunity was granted but not utilized and filing of application for recall of PW.1, that too at stage of argument, was apparent abuse of process. Therefore, rejection of application by Trial Court was justified. 11. Insofar as impugned judgment, it is seen that trial Court took note of assertions of complainant about transaction between accused and complainant supported by his deposition and marking of cheque in question as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 Ex.P1, bank endorsements, demand notice, postal acknowledgment as Ex.P2 to Ex.P10. 12. Apart from above, transaction was corroborated by marking of construction agreement as Ex.P11. Said documents are consistent with pleading and deposition of PW.1. There is no challenge about infraction of time line indicated in Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under such circumstances, Trial Court proceeded to accept uncontroverted evidence on behalf of complainant and passed impugned judgment. It is also seen that on re- appreciation, Appellate Court affirmed conclusion. It is seen that both Courts have on examination of entire material on record, arrived at reasoned conclusions. Same are not established to suffer from perversity. 13. In view of above, it is seen accused herein has without justification sought to dilate proceedings. Hence, revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53069 CRL.RP No. 112 of 2024 payable to respondent/complainant within four weeks from today. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32