- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29682 CRL.RP No. 756 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.756 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI RAVI KUMAR M N S/O NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT ALSO R/AT SRI RAVI KUMAR M N S/O NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.51, 2ND MAIN 7TH CROSS MADDURAMMA LAYOUT SUNKADDAKATTE BENGALURU-560091 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH N J, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI GIRISH M G S/O M C GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.69 NEAR R V SCHOOL AND SEETHARAM TEMPLE 4TH ‘D’ CROSS RAJGOPAL NAGARA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29682 CRL.RP No. 756 of 2026 PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560058. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S U/S 438 OF BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.631/2024 BY THE HONBLE LXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY CCH-69 AT 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 dated 15.03.2024 passed in C.C.No.23100/2021 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 10.04.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.631/2024 by the Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court that the complainant and accused are well known to each other and in that acquaintance, accused borrowed hand from the complainant on various dates by way of Phone pay i.e., on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29682 CRL.RP No. 756 of 2026 29.07.2020, 07.08.2020, 14.08.2020, 17.08.2020, 21.08.2020, 27.08.2020, 31.08.2020 and 03.09.2020, in all, the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and he has promised to repay the same within 6 months and also issued the subject matter of cheque. When the said Cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued the demand notice to the accused and the same was returned on 26.04.2021 with shara ‘party not residing in village Mallapura’. Further, another notice was issued. The accused did not make the payment. Hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he represented through the counsel. 4. The accused cross-examined PW1. The only defence in the cross-examination that, accused has received only the amount of Rs.72,000/- from the complainant and in that regard, there was a phone conversation which was transferred to the pen drive at Ex.P12. When the accused himself had admitted his phone conversation with the complainant and the certificate under Section 65(B) is produced, the pen drive also produced under Ex.P12, the same can be reliable in evidence as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29682 CRL.RP No. 756 of 2026 secondary documents. But the accused did not enter into the witness box and also failed to rebut the case of complainant. The Trial Court taking into note of phone payment made to him on different dates and when the defence is not substantiated, convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the material on record in paragraph 24 to 26 comes to the conclusion that the complainant has made out the existence of legally enforceable debt and payment also made through phone pay and details are given to that effect. Though, defence was taken by the accused that he has received only Rs.72,000/-, the same is not substantiated. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29682 CRL.RP No. 756 of 2026 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that if opportunity is given to the petitioner, he would substantiate his case. The question of giving an opportunity does not arise for the reason that the case was filed in the year 2021 and the same was disposed of in 2024 i.e., after 3 years and there is no effective cross- examination with regard to the defence that accused had taken only Rs.72,000/-. The records discloses that the payments are made to him through phone and even the details are given by the complainant and cheque was given to that effect and postal acknowledgement is also produced before the Court and no reply was given and even not led any defence evidence to substantiate the case. In the absence of preponderance of probabilities, the question of considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN