- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29555 CRL.RP No. 511 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.511 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.H. RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS WORKING AS SCHOOL MASTER R/AT 1ST CROSS MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA–562 160. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KUMARA S/O LATE REVANASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT AVVERHALLY VILLAGE AND POST, KYLANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA -562 159. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO:60/2023 BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED DATED Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29555 CRL.RP No. 511 of 2026 03.08.2023 IN C.C.NO.1371/2017 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Court suspended sentence vide order dated 17.04.2026 and directed to pay 50% of the fine amount inclusive of the fine amount already in deposit on or before 02.06.2026 and the same is not complied with. Apart from that, this revision petition is filed against concurrent finding and notice was issued, the same was served and no reply was given. However, the accused led defence evidence and marked the documents as Exs.D1 and D2 and in the cross-examination, D.W.1 categorically admitted that Cheque pertains to his account and the same is extracted in paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the Trial Court and the defence that Cheque given to some other person was misused is not substantiated. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29555 CRL.RP No. 511 of 2026 First Appellate Court also reconsidered the same and comes to the conclusion that there is no rebuttal evidence. 3. Having taken note of concurrent finding and there is no rebuttal evidence and also even not complied with the conditional order passed by this Court, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36