- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29043 CRL.RP No. 837 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.837 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. SHYLA B M D/O SRI MUNIKEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT BISANAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY MS. G CHINMAYI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. THEJESH P, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M.S. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE M N SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.227, “MADURYA” ASHWATHANARAYANA FARM KADUGODI POST PATALAMMA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560067 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29043 CRL.RP No. 837 of 2026 10.07.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.12512/2023 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2026 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.90/2025 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 dated 10.07.2025 passed in C.C.No.12512/2023 and the judgment dated 25.04.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.90/2025. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant/respondent before the Trial Court is that the complainant and accused are known to each other and in that acquaintance, accused borrowed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant agreeing to repay the same within six months and also issued post dated Cheque to that effect. When the accused failed repay the loan amount, complainant presented - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29043 CRL.RP No. 837 of 2026 the said Cheque and the same was returned as ‘exceeds arrangements’. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused but no reply was given. Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the complainant has proved the case and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court also on re-appreciation of material on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the accused has filed this revision petition before this Court. 4. The main contention of the revision petitioner before this Court is that not given an opportunity before the trial Court though matter was listed for further cross examination of PW1 and the same was taken as nil. Even the date was given for leading defence evidence on 10.07.2025, the trial Court, on the very same day when the accused and her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29043 CRL.RP No. 837 of 2026 counsel did not appear before the court, having considered the material, disposed of the case. The appellate court also failed to consider the same. 5. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record particularly, taking note of the discussion made by the appellate court in Crl. A.No.90/2025 with regard to the opportunity is concerned, wherein the appellate Court observed that cross-examination of PW1 was deferred when the date was fixed on 13.10.2024 and adjourned to 08.11.2024 and again on 02.12.2024. On that day, counsel for the accused partly cross examined PW1. Subsequently, on two dates, PO was on leave and matter was adjourned to 20.04.2025. On 20.04.2025, PW1 was absent and the matter was listed for cross-examination of PW1 on 17.05.2025. On 17.05.2025 PW1 was present but accused was absent and at request of counsel for the accused, cross- examination was deferred at cost of Rs.1,000/- on 09.06.2025. On 09.06.2025, both accused and the counsel for the accused were absent. Hence, trial Court taken the cross examination of PW1 as nil and posted the matter for defence evidence on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29043 CRL.RP No. 837 of 2026 10.07.2025 that means, giving a month’s time. On that day also, the accused counsel as well as accused were absent and even not made any application for recalling for cross- examination of PW1. 6. The records discloses that after conducting the cross-examination of PW1 in part also, the case was adjourned to different dates and not cross examined the witness. When such being the case, the very contention of the petitioner's counsel that no opportunity was given to cross-examine PW1 cannot be accepted. The very submission made by the petitioner's counsel is against the records as the same is considered by the appellate court. When there is no effective cross examination as well as no rebuttal evidence by the accused, the question of considering this revision petition does not arise. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of trial Court as well as the appellate court. Even the appellate court also has taken pain in considering the order sheet and narrated the same in the order. The scope of revision is very limited. If both the Courts committed an error in considering the material and the order suffers from legality and correctness, then only - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29043 CRL.RP No. 837 of 2026 this Court can consider the matter or otherwise, it is not warranted to admit the revision petition. In the case on hand, no such circumstances is warranted. Hence, no ground is made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN