- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29220 CRL.RP No. 922 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 922 OF 2025 BETWEEN: RAJASHEKHARAPPA G R S/O PATEL RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT: ANDANURU, HOLALAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G.M., ADVOCATE) AND: BASAVANTHAPPA S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT: B. DURGA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 438 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.110/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONVICTION ORDER DATED 04.11.2023 PASSED IN C.C NO.243/2023 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOLALKERE THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29220 CRL.RP No. 922 of 2025 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A 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 1. This matter is listed for admission. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the trial Court while initiating the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by filing a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., an allegation is made that the accused has been running a petrol bunk at Andanur gate which is standing in the name of his wife and he is doing agriculture work also. It is further stated that for his financial needs and to meet out his financial difficulties, the accused approached and requested the complainant to advance the hand loan of `9,00,000/- to resolve his problems and the complainant had given `5,00,000/- on 05.06.2022 and a sum of `4,00,000/- on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29220 CRL.RP No. 922 of 2025 05.8.2022, in total sum of `9,00,000/- to the accused. The accused promised to repay the said loan amount within 5 months. For which, the accused gave a cheque i.e. subject matter of the cheque and when the same was presented before the Bank the same was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The complainant has got issued a legal notice to the accused through his counsel on 10.03.2023 and the same was served. The accused neither made any payment nor replied to the said legal notice and hence, the complaint was filed a case and trial court taken cognizance and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents Exhibits P1 to P7. On the other hand, respondent also examined himself as DW.1 and got marked the documents Exhibits D.1 to D.24. The trial Court having considered the material, when the defence was taken, the cheque was given in favour of one B.K.C.Mahendra and there was no transaction between the complainant and accused and even extracted the evidence of PW.1 in keeping the defence which was taken by the revision petitioner and also taken note of admission on the part of DW.1 that is revision petitioner herein at paragraph numbers 18 to 24. Even he has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29220 CRL.RP No. 922 of 2025 admitted that for the maintenance of his petrol bunk he also taken the loan from others, trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no rebuttal evidence when the cheque was admitted and signature was admitted and no action was taken against Mr.B.K.C. Mahendra that he had misused the cheque through the complainant and all these factors were taken note of and convicted and sentenced. 4. The said order of conviction is challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2023 and Appellate Court also having re- analysed the evidence available on record, taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of PW.1 and also the answer elicited from the mouth of DW.1 in the cross-examination in paragraph number 36 and in paragraph number 37 comes to the conclusion that entire evidence taken on record reveals that the burden of proof discharged by the complainant by way of oral and documentary evidence, the same is not rebutted with any cogent evidence and also taken note of document Exhibit D.24, the alleged petrol/diesel bunk business registered and maintained by the accused/- appellant and the same appears to be from 07.03.2019 to 15.08.2019 and the same is not relates - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29220 CRL.RP No. 922 of 2025 to the year 2022 in which total loan of `9,00,000/- was given by the complainant and moreover, Exhibit P.1 - cheque is of 07.01.2023 and so also taken note of in paragraph numbers 39 and 40 comes to the conclusion that rebuttal evidence not satisfies the Court to come to a other conclusion. 5. Now the counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the trial Court and Appellate Court committed an error in not taking note of the defence of the revision petitioner that there is no transaction between the complainant and the accused. The cheque was given in favour of one Mr. B.K.C. Mahendra and the same was misused. The counsel also would submit that the trial court and Appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the defence was not substantiated and also not rebutted and the said approach is not correct. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant brought to notice of this Court that the discussion made by the trial Court in paragraph numbers 18 to 25 and so also taken note of evidence of PW.1 and the same was not rebutted and categorical admissions were extracted in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29220 CRL.RP No. 922 of 2025 paragraph number 18 particularly, with regard to the instrument of cheque and also though took the defence that cheque was given in favour of one Mr.B.K.C. Mahendra and the same is not substantiated, the counsel submits that the question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise. 7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, it is trite law that the scope of revision is very limited. The Revisional Court only to look into the order passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. If it suffers from legality and correctness in considering the material available on record, then only the Court can exercise the Revisional jurisdiction. But in the case on hand, no dispute with regard to the issuance of cheque and the signature and also notice was issued. But at the initial stage, no reply was given. But reply was given later on and the defence is that, cheque was given in favour of one Mr.B.K.C.Mahendra and the same was misused. In order to substantiate that defence, nothing is placed on record and even not given any complaint against the said Mr.B.K.C.Mahendra for misusing of the cheque and the same was also considered by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29220 CRL.RP No. 922 of 2025 the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the scope of revision is also very limited. If the rebuttal evidence is produced and the same was substantiated by placing material and the same is not considered, then only the Revisional Court can exercise its revisional powers. But the same is not found in the case on hand and both the Courts have applied their judicious mind and considered the case of complainant and also DW.1 and particularly, the answer elicited from the mouth of cross examination of DW1 and the same is extracted by the trial Court in paragraph numbers 18 to 22 and when such being the case, I do not find any ground to come to a conclusion that orders of the trial Court and the Appellate Court suffers from legality and correctness and hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28