- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28336 CRL.RP No. 343 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.343 OF 2026 BETWEEN: M/S. SILICON TECHNOLOGIES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR ABHINANDANA D.V. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE D.N VENKATARAMAIAH R/AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE - 561 203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN C, ADVOCATE) AND: R. MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O RANGASWAMY R/AT NO.19 RAMASANDRA VILLAGE SULIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE – 560060 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MOHAN B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28336 CRL.RP No. 343 of 2026 ORDER DATED 27-01-2026 IN CRL.A.NO.07/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL 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 The present revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in C.C.No.20105/2021 and also against the order of the appellate Court dated 27.01.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.7/2025. 2. This petition is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that the complainant and the accused are the family friends and accused is a proprietor of Silicon Technologies. With the acquaintance, the accused availed hand loan from the complainant to the tune of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28336 CRL.RP No. 343 of 2026 Rs.34,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same within six months. But he failed to do the same. When the complainant demanded for repayment of the amount, accused issued a Cheque and the same was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Hence, the complainant issued the legal notice to the accused but he failed to repay the said amount. Hence, a complaint has been lodged and the Trial Court took the cognizance and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty. 4. The Trial Court while convicting the petitioner/accused, taken note of defence on the part of the revision petitioner wherein he took the defence that he has transacted only with Balaraj and the other cases filed by other complainants and this complainant are false. The said version is not admitted by PW1 during the course of cross-examination and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1 during the course of cross-examination. No doubt, it is settled law that the accused did not enter into the witness box to rebut the evidence of complainant and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28336 CRL.RP No. 343 of 2026 nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 with regard to the defence what he has taken and no defence evidence is also led by the petitioner. Apart from that when a notice was served to the accused, he has not disputed the financial transaction and financial capacity of the complainant by giving reply and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph 20 of the judgment and also it is held that in view of non-rebuttal and also not proving of any preponderance of probabilities of the defence, it is a fit case to convict the accused and hence, convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, an appeal was filed before the appellate court. Before the appellate court also, the appellant did not pursue the matter and ultimately, the appeal was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, present revision petition is filed before this court praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and also prayed this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28336 CRL.RP No. 343 of 2026 Court to set aside the order of the Appellate Court in dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. 6. The grounds urged in the revision petition by the petitioner's counsel is that the trial Court committed an error in not considering the material and record. The evidence of petitioner makes it clear that there is no proper source of income and financial capability is not being established by the complainant as needed under law. The trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioner only coming to a conclusion of presumption. 7. The counsel for the respondent would submit that the Trial Court passed a detailed order referring the material available on record and hence, interference of this court does not require. 8. Having heard the counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal the material on record, it discloses that the trial court considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record while convicting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28336 CRL.RP No. 343 of 2026 the petitioner. It is also discloses that the trial court also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 193 in the case of APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Shakti International Fashion Linkers and others and extracted paragraph 20 of the said judgment wherein, the Apex Court made an observation that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under 139 of N.I Act, about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, therefore the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque. But in the case on hand, the same was not rebutted and no such rebuttal evidence is also placed before the court. Thus, the question of once again shifting the burden on the complainant does not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28336 CRL.RP No. 343 of 2026 arise. The trial court taken a note of the principle laid down in the said judgment referred supra and also considered that the accused did not choose to enter into the witness box to rebut the case of the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act. So also, the petitioner though preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, the judgment of the trial court is not suffers from any illegality or correctness. Under such circumstances, there is no need to exercise the revisional jurisdiction by this court to entertain the revision petition since, there is no ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN