- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26545 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2026 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. 696 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. M/S AKASH SHOP AND SAVE FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OPP. SANTHE MAIDANA, HOSAMANE MAIN ROAD, BHADRAVATHI - 577301 REP BY IT PROPRITOR, SRI. PRAVEEN KAMBLE, S/O VITTAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SRI. PRAVEEN KAMBLE, S/O VITTAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF AKASH SHOP AND SAVE FIRM, R/O NMC MAIN ROAD, OPP SANTHE MAIDANA, BHADRAVATHI- 577301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RENSPRE PRITHESH DSOUZA,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G V GIRI S/O. SR. B. GANGADHARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26545 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2026 BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURIST, R/T SWARNA,BANGLE AND GIFT PALACE, BHADRAVATHI- 577301. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.03.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.5044/2024 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 04.11.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.120/2022 BY THE HONBLE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C BHADARATHI BY ALLOWING THIS RP. 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. 2. Heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 3. The factual matrix of the case are that the complainant and revision petitioner No.2 are well known to each other. He pleaded his financial difficulties and requested for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26545 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2026 only) from the complainant and promised to pay the said loan within a month and on the same day he issued post dated Cheque dated 30.5.2019. As per the promise made by the revision petitioner No.2, the complainant demanded to repay the loan amount and presented the Cheque for encashment on instructions of revision petitioner No.2 but the said Cheque came to be dishonoured with an endorsement as ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, he has issued legal notice calling upon the revision petitioner to pay the Cheque amount. Inspite of service of notice, revision petitioner No.2 failed to make payment of the Cheque amount. Hence, the complaint is filed against this revision petitioner. Considering the evidence of witnesses and material available on record, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short) in C.C.No.120/2022 and the same is confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5044/2024. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26545 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2026 4. The only defence taken before the trial Court that there was a transaction between one Shekhar and the accused and there was no any financial transaction between the complainant and the accused. In order to substantiate the same, except the oral evidence, nothing is placed on record and even not examined any of the other member of the chit which was run by Shekar. Even no document is placed before the Court that he was a member of the chit. The same has taken note of by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that except oral evidence, no material is placed before the Court. When such being the case, question of entertaining the revision does not arise and only this Court by exercising the revision of jurisdiction considers legality and correctness of the judgment of the trial Court and appellate court. When both the Courts have taken note of material available on record and not disputed the issuance of cheque and signature available in the cheque except the defence, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26545 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2026 same is not substantiated and defence remains without any substantiating the same and no rebuttal evidence. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the revision. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53