- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28610 CRL.RP No. 674 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.674 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. AMBARESH N.S., S/O LATE NARAHARI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O 5TH CROSS GANDHINAGARA DAVANAGERE-577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH R. CHAKRASALI S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.868/2, ANEKOND PETE SHIVAJI NAGARA DAVANAGERE CITY-577 002. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2026, PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.145/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE, WHICH HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION IN CC NO.2427/2023, DATED: 01.10.2024, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 1 ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DAVANAGERE CITY. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28610 CRL.RP No. 674 of 2026 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. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 2. The factual matrix of case is that accused is well known to the complainant since many years and due to the said acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant in the second week of July, 2021 for a loan of Rs.2,90,000/- for the purpose of domestic needs and assured to return back within six months and issued a post dated Cheque. However, when the complainant presented the said Cheque for encashment, the said Cheque has returned with a shara ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 17.01.2022 to the accused and the said legal notice was served. Inspite of the same, the accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint against accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiation Instrument Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28610 CRL.RP No. 674 of 2026 3. The complainant, in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P5 and Cheque is marked as Ex.P1 and when the Cheque was bounced, legal notice was issued no reply was given and demand was not complied with and hence, initiated the proceedings. 4. During the course of trial also, P.W.1 was not cross- examined and not led any defence evidence. Hence, the Trial Court convicted the accused and assigned reasons in paragraph Nos.14 to 16 and so also taken note of in paragraph No.17 with regard to the sentence and the same is challenged before the First Appellate Court. 5. The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.41 comes to the conclusion that no reply was given and lost the opportunity to controvert the case of complainant and also did not cross-examine P.W.1 and even did not enter the witness box. 6. When such being the case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of presumption and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28610 CRL.RP No. 674 of 2026 no rebuttal evidence. Hence, question of considering the revision does not arise. The scope of revision is very limited and this Court has to examine only the legality and correctness of the judgment and the same is not warranted in the case on hand. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29