- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25438 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 681 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI B N SHIVANANDA S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO:216, JNANA MARGA, 5TH MAIN ROAD, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR MYSURU - 570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M SATHVIK.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O H MAHADEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A KURUBARA BEEDI T HOSURU VILLAGE, SHIVALLI PSOT, AGARA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TLAUK CHAMARAJNAGARA - 571 313 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 12.11.2025 IN CC NO.2035/2022 IN THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOLLELGAL AND THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2026 IN CRL.A NO.5018/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA (SITTINIG AT KOLLEGAL) CONFIRMING THE SAME. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25438 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER The matter is listed for admission today i.e., 01.06.2026. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The trial Court has considered the case of the complainant and sentenced the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.9,70,000/-, out of this Rs.9,60,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation that is particularly taking into note of the cheque, which is marked as Ex.P1. The trial Court has also taken note of the signature in cheque and bouncing of cheque, which are not denied. It is also observed that notice of the bouncing of cheque was served, no reply was given and no defence evidence was also led. While considering the defence taken, the trial Court in paragraph No.11 made an observation that the defence is that cheque was misused. But, the trial Court has taken note of in paragraph No.15, the suggestion made to PW.1 during the course of cross examination, that accused offered a site when the amount was received and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25438 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2026 same was refused by the complainant and hence, comes to the conclusion, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, convicted and sentenced the accused. 3. The same is also taken note by the First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the trial Court records particularly in paragraph No.11 that though argument was canvassed by the accused that no opportunity was given, the Appellate Court has taken note that the trial Court has granted five occasions to the accused to lead his evidence, but the accused failed to lead his evidence. Having considered the reasons of the trial Court, and in the absence of any defence evidence as the defence was not substantiated by placing any cogent evidence and the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that, no ground is made out and dismissed the appeal. 4. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the revision petition and only this Court has the power to consider legality and correctness of the judgment of the trial Court when the same is re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal, I do not find any ground to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25438 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2026 interfere with finding of the trial Court in admitting this revision petition and even with regard to the cheque amount as well as imposition of the sentence is also not exorbitant. The defendant has not made out any ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction and no ground is made out to admit the revision petition and hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24