- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26118 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1277 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI REEGUN C S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KORALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINATH P, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PUSHPA W/O MANJUNATHA PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT K. MALLASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114 VARTHUR POLICE STATION …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR R H, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDERS ON SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.498/2017 DTD Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26118 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025 05.09.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSKOTE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Having perused the material on record, it discloses that the issuance of cheque is not in dispute and also the signature in the said cheque is also not in dispute. Hence, there is a presumption in favour of holder of the Cheque and the burden is on the accused to disprove the cheque and also disprove the existence of any legal or recoverable debt. 3. Though contention was taken by the revision petitioner that he has not issued the cheque in favour of the complainant but the same was issued in favour of one M D Pushpa. The said fact is not substantiated by leading any defence evidence and not marked any document in this regard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26118 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025 Thus, the defence remains as defence since nothing is established to prove the said defence and also not rebutted the evidence of the complainant. The same was taken note of by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court, when the argument was canvassed that no notice was served, held that it is not the case of the accused that the notice was not issued by the complainant. Having improper address of the addressee and also even not denied the address and not given any reply. Apart from that the First Appellate Court also in detail considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo and in paragraph 21 comes to the conclusion that it is not the case of the appellant that he had issued the cheque to some other party as a matter of security or otherwise and the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. 4. Having taken note of no denial of signature on the Cheque and also no denial of issuance of Cheque and defence which was raised by the revision petitioner also has not been substantiated and not led any defence evidence and also not marked any documents, the order impugned passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court not suffers from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26118 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025 any illegality or correctness. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN