- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52967 CRL.RP No. 256 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. 256 OF 2024 BETWEEN: K S GANESH, S/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O KALENAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI - 573 133, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S C., ADVOCATE) AND: A GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE A Y ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O AJJURU VILLAGE - 573 142, DODDAMAGGE HOBLI, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HASSAN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.142/2022 DATED 11.12.2023 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOLENARASIPURA IN C.C.NO.35/2019 DATED 26.07.2022 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HONBLE DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52967 CRL.RP No. 256 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.no.142/2022, confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, in C.C.no.35/2019, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Vijayakumar S.C., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that present revision is arising out of a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused was well known to complainant and had purchased 15 quintals and 76 Kgs of Arecanut from complainant at Rs.45,500/- per quintal in presence of A.C. Manjunatha. It was stated that he had paid Rs.5,000/- as advance and towards balance amount of Rs.7,12,000/- issued cheque drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Kalenahalli J.P. Branch, which when presented on 19.03.2019 returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient' and thereafter, failed to repay amount within time even after demand notice dated 02.04.2019 got issued by complainant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52967 CRL.RP No. 256 of 2024 was served on him, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). 3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself and A.C. Manjunatha as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P16. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same and sought to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. 4. Thereafter, accused deposed as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D5. It was submitted, though accused had setup several defences and substantiated same in cross- examination of complainant as well as in defence evidence, without consideration of same, trial Court passed impugned judgment convicting accused. Even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision petition. 5. It was submitted, impugned judgments suffered from perversity and called for interference. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52967 CRL.RP No. 256 of 2024 6. On other hand, Sri Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for respondent submitted, sole ground of challenge is that complainant though claimed that accused had purchased 15 quintals 76 Kgs of arecanut grown in his lands and accused was due to of Rs.Rs.7,12,000/-towards same and had issued cheque -Ex.P.9 - Record of rights did not indicate cultivation of arecanut. While Ex.P.6 in respect of very same land showed yield as 30 quintals would be contrary. Same was not noticed by both Courts and therefore finding of both Courts suffer from perversity and sought for dismissal of revision. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and records. 8. Perusal of deposition of complainant as PW1 as well as exhibits got marked would indicate that complainant had claimed that he had grown arecanut and same was sold to accused in presence of one AC Manjunath, who is also examined as PW2. Thus, there is corroboration of deposition of complainant's revision. Apart from above, it is seen Ex.P.16 certificate would indicate yield of 30 quintals of arecanut for subsequent year and there is no cross-examination with regard - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52967 CRL.RP No. 256 of 2024 to yield or with reference to exhibits marked. Therefore, no case of perversity established. Revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38