- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28333 CRL.RP No. 606 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.606 OF 2026 BETWEEN: K S BHUVANESH C/O PRAMEELA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 2ND FLOOR 6TH CROSS ROAD VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT J.P.NAGAR, 8TH PHASE B.K.CIRCLE BENGALURU-560076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI THIRTHAPPA K M, ADVOCATE) AND: M S LEELAVATHI D/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.54, DIVYA RESIDENCY 4TH CROSS ROAD, SURABHINAGAR JAMBUSAVARI DINNE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560076 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ASHOK KUMAR B G, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28333 CRL.RP No. 606 of 2026 This CRL.RP is FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 of BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 07.03.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.614/2024 IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 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 revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in C.C.No.12378/2022 and also the confirmation of the judgment of the trial court by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.614/2024. 2. This petition is listed for admission. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant is that herself and the wife of the accused are very close friends and having close acquaintance with each other. With this acquaintance, the accused used to avail financial help from complainant whenever he is in need and the same used to be - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28333 CRL.RP No. 606 of 2026 discharged from time to time. It is contended that in the month of August 2021, the accused approached the complainant and requested for financial help to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- in order to discharge his household difficulties and other urgent necessities. Accordingly, the complainant paid the said amount on 29.08.2021 to the accused by way of cash as hand loan and the accused agreed to repay the same within a period of six months. But failed to repay the amount and the cheque which was given towards the liability was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, notice was issued and no reply was given. Thus, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured before the trial Court and he did not plead guilty. 4. The complainant examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. The accused though examined as DW1, not marked any document and though led the evidence of rebuttal but no such rebuttal evidence and during the course of cross-examination of PW1, nothing is elicited with regard to the defence which was taken. Hence, the trial Court considered the material on record particularly no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28333 CRL.RP No. 606 of 2026 reply was given. The Trial Court also relied upon the judgments in the case of RANGAPPA vs MOHAN reported in AIR 2010 sc 1898; MURALIDHAR RAO vs P NAGESH reported in 2021 (2) KLJ 647; JAYALAKSHMMA vs SHASHIKALA reported in 2021 (2) KCCR 1511 and APS FOREX SERVICES PRIVATE LTD., vs SHAKTHI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 and comes to the conclusion that no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the accused and also held that in the absence of rebuttal evidence, complainant has proved her case and convicted the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, an appeal was also filed before the appellate court. The appellate court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that trial Court has rightly considered regarding issuance of prior notice on accused and no reply was given by him and there is no rebuttal evidence and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28333 CRL.RP No. 606 of 2026 6. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner before this court is that both the courts have committed an error in not considering the evidence of DW1 when specific defence was taken that the cheque was not issued towards the debt or liability. But trial Court comes to the conclusion that the cheque was issued towards the debt or liability. Hence, interference of this court is required. 7. Having considered the grounds urged in the revision petition and also considering the submissions of the counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that it is not in dispute that cheque bears the signature of the revision petitioner and also not in dispute that cheque belongs to the accused which was given to the complainant. Though defence was taken that the said cheque was not issued towards the debt or liability, the petitioner has not explained how the cheque gone to the hands of the complainant. Even though notice was issued and the same was acknowledged, no reply was given and not rebutted the evidence of complainant. Under such circumstances, the scope of revision is very limited that is only to examine the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28333 CRL.RP No. 606 of 2026 legality and correctness of the judgment of both the courts and the same is not warranted in the case on hand considering the material available on record. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN