- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27071 CRL.RP No. 873 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.873 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. TITAN ENGINEERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. D.L.PRASAD NO.201, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA BOMMASANDRA, JIGANI LINK ROAD BENGALURU-560 105. 2. MR. D.L.PRASAD PROPRIETOR TITAN ENGINEERS NO.201, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA BOMMASANDRA, JIGANI LINK ROAD BENGALURU-560 105. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYARAJ GOWDA M.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S.TRIDENT INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT PLOT NO.222/2, 4TH PHASE BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 105 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY S/O. BABU SHETTY AGED 43 YEARS. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27071 CRL.RP No. 873 of 2026 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 14.03.2023 PASSED IN CC NO.13865/2019 BY THE HON'BLE XXV ADDL. CMM AT BENGALURU AND ITS CONFIRMATION ORDER OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.495/2023 BY A JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2026 BY THE HON'BLE LXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-69) AT BENGALURU CITY. 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 appearing for the petitioners. 2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that there was a business transaction between the complainant and the accused and in pursuance of the business transaction, the accused was due to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. On demand, subject matter of the Cheques are issued. When the said Cheques were presented, the same was not honoured and returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and legal notice was issued. Inspite of demand and the said demand is not complied. Hence, initiated proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27071 CRL.RP No. 873 of 2026 3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P13, including the Cheque and Cheque is marked as Exs.P2 to P4. Bank memos as Exs.P5 to P7, the legal notice as Ex.P8, postal receipt as Ex.P9 and postal acknowledgements as Exs.P10 and P11 and no reply was given to the notice and even with regard to the transaction is concerned, produced the registered partnership deed and also notarized copy of the tax invoices. 4. The only contention of the petitioners before the Trial Court is that those Cheques were issued earlier and the same have been misused and the same are issued for security and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is produced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that said aspects has not been rebutted during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 and also not led any defence evidence before the Trial Court to rebut the case of the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act and the same is also taken note of by the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court also re-appreciated the same and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27071 CRL.RP No. 873 of 2026 5. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and there is no error on the part of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness. The scope of revision is also very limited and no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38