- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26503 CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1416 OF 2023 BETWEEN: P AMARANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE T E PREMKUMAR NO.97, 2ND FLOOR WHEELERS ROAD COX TOWN BENGLAURU - 560 005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGARAJA B, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANY’S ACT AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS KUMARA KRUPA ROAD KUMARA PARK EAST BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAJU P, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2023 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26503 CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2023 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AND CONVICTING THE PETITIONER U/S 374(3) OF THE CR.P.C. 1973 BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.809/2019 AFTER CALLING FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINING THE SAME 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. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a company doing business of gold jewelry and gold bullion. The accused is responsible for the liability for a sum of Rs.50 lakh towards the complainant and in this regard, he had issued a Cheque but the said Cheque was dishonoured and returned with a shara of “Account Closed”. Thus, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused but he has neither paid the Cheque amount nor given reply. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26503 CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2023 Hence, a complaint has been lodged against the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. The Trial Court having considered the material on record particularly, the document of Ex.P7 cheque dated 31.12.2012; also the document of notice dated 19.01.2013 at Ex.P9 and an acknowledgement at Ex.P11, in paragraph 16 held that notice was served on the accused but he has not replied to the said notice and also comes to the conclusion that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act and on the other hand, the complainant by cogent and convincible evidence had proved that the accused has issued the Cheque in question for legally recoverable debt. So also the appellate court considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and having considered the material on record held that there is no denial of issuance of cheque and signature in the Cheque and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26503 CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2023 4. On perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the defence which was taken by the accused was not substantiated placing any material before the court i.e., either before the Trial Court or before the appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition. The scope of revision is very limited. When the order of both the Courts suffers from legality or correctness, then only this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. The records discloses that defence has not led any evidence and presumption is not rebutted under Section 139 of N.I. Act substantiating the defence. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN