- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26841 CRL.RP No. 587 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.587 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SINGH TRADERS SHOP NO.NGE 453 AND 376 JANATA MARKET, GOAL BAZAR KHARAGPUR MIDNAPORE WEST BENGAL REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR YASHWANT KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE SRIKANT SINGH …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. NINJACART SERVICES PVT. LTD., R/AT NO.SY.NO.16/1,17/2, BELLANDUR GATE, SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, AMBALIPURA BENGALURU-560102 REP. BY ITS MANAGER MR. KIRAN KASHINATHAN. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 03.02.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.22868/2024 BY THE XXV A.C.J.M BENGALURU AND CONFIRMED BY JUDGMENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26841 CRL.RP No. 587 of 2026 DATED 12.03.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.279/2025 BY THE LXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-69) BENGALURU. 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 and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of agricultural products and fresh produce supply. The accused is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of agricultural products and commission agent and approached the complainant for loan through Trillionloans Fintech Private Limited in Loan Application No.48674. After considering the loan application, the complainant extended credit on 24.05.2023 of Rs.12,51,288/-. Out of that, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid and outstanding amount of Rs.8,31,562/- was pending and the remaining amount was not released. Though Ex.P6 was given for the said amount, the same was not honoured and legal notice was issued and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26841 CRL.RP No. 587 of 2026 accused did not comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed and the Trial Court considered the documents of Exs.P3 to P5 loan application, sanction letter and agreement, considered the same. The accused did not plead guilty and relied upon the evidence. 3. The Trial Court also taken note of particularly in paragraph No.9 that it is admitted that an amount of Rs.12,51,000/- is sanctioned and out of it, only Rs.8,00,000/- is transferred to the account of the accused and rest of Rs.4,50,000/- is lying with the complainant finance. In the cross-examination, though defence was taken that amount was repaid, the same is not substantiated. The defence has not denied entire loan transaction process, including loan agreement under NACH and also the signature of the accused. The Trial Court also discussed in detail in paragraph No.13 that the accused has not led any defence evidence and the accused denied entire incriminating evidence placed by the complainant. The Trial Court also taken note that to rebut initial presumption existing in favour of the complainant, the accused has not led - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26841 CRL.RP No. 587 of 2026 any oral and documentary evidence. Hence, accepted the case of the complainant and convicted and sentenced the accused. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.279/2025 and the First Appellate Court also having reassessed the evidence available on record in paragraph No.26 comes to the conclusion that without existence of legally enforceable debt and also that accused failed to repay the amount as per the demand and there is a presumption and the same is not rebutted, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court in the revision vehemently contended that both the Courts have committed an error and the Trial Judge not appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 in a proper perspective and so also the mandatory requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act have not been complied. It is also contended that the respondent has failed to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt and no trustworthy evidence has been produced regarding issuance of cheque/ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26841 CRL.RP No. 587 of 2026 NACH mandate towards discharge of liability. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Therefore, prays this Court to admit the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also considering the material available on record, the complainant in order to substantiate the case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P10 and considering Ex.P6 and other documents, the Trial Court accepted the evidence of complainant and nothing is substantiated by leading any rebuttal evidence. 7. The Trial Court also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RANGAPPA VS. MOHAN reported in 2010 (11) SCC 441 and comes to the conclusion that when there is no rebuttal evidence and not disputed the transaction and documents and the accused has not led any defence evidence to substantiate the same, these aspects have been considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the revision and question of legality and correctness of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26841 CRL.RP No. 587 of 2026 the judgment does not arise, as the same is based on the material available on record. 8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36