- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29214 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2026 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. 504 OF 2026 BETWEEN: M/S. FREEZ FIRE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2326, 4TH CROSS, DATTAGALLI III STAGE, KANAKADASANAGAR, MYSORE-570 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. VEERABHADRESHWARA ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. SUSHEELA MARUR, W/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. SHUBHASH, S/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 85-86, SURYASUSHEELA ASHIRWAD, OPP. TDB COLONY, GORNALLI, BIDAR-585 403. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SECTION 442 BNSS) CR.P.C BY PRAYING TO SET ASIDE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29214 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2026 THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1267/2024 ON 05.02.2026 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 on I.A.1/2026 for suspension of sentence. 3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court is that the complainant's Firm deals with the supply of fire safety equipments. The accused had placed orders for purchasing fire safety equipments for ₹6,04,065/-. After confirming the purchase order, complainant supplied the fire safety equipments to the accused vide purchase order on 31.12.2021 and the accused received all the materials by E- way bill and invoice dated 03.01.2022. As per the terms of the purchase order, payment was to be paid within 35 days. Towards the payment of the fire safety equipments supplied to the accused, he has issued a post-dated cheque dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29214 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2026 08.02.2022. However, the accused failed to pay the amount also accused issued a cheque for an amount of ₹7,34,000/-. When the cheque was presented, same are returned to the complainant 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, complainant informed the same to the accused, who sought for 40 days time and two deferred payment method to discharge the payment and executed Agreement of MOU with the complainant on 01.07.2022. As per the terms of the Agreement, accused issued two cheques on different dates i.e., cheque dated 20.07.2022 for an amount of ₹3,67,000/- and another cheque dated 10.08.2022 for an amount of ₹3,67,000/-. Both the cheques issued were took back by the accused and when the complainant presented the cheque dated 20.07.2022, it was shocked once again that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement that 'funds insufficient' and the complainant got issued a legal notice and in spite of notice was acknowledged, he did not comply the same and hence, filed a complaint and cognizance was taken and he was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence, the trial Court allowed the complainant to lead evidence and he has been examined as PW1 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P14. Though - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29214 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2026 revision petitioner represented through the counsel, did not choose to cross - examine the PW1 and even not led any defence evidence and ultimately, convicted and sentence was imposed and the same is also questioned in Crl.Appeal No.1267/2024 and the same is considered with the assistance of amicus curiae and the appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record, confirmed the judgment. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present revision petition is filed. 4. The counsel appearing to the petitioner would submit that the counsel on record before the trial Court has not intimated the same. But the fact is that when he represented through the counsel, the revision petitioner has to get the instructions and even he has not given any instructions to cross examine the counsel on record and there is no any rebuttal evidence and he did not make any effective cross examination of PW1 and also not led any defense evidence and even in the appellate Court also though filed appeal against him and he has not prosecuted the appeal, but the appellate Court, by appointing amicus curiae, disposal of the case on merits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29214 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2026 5. Under the circumstances, where there is no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of N.I. Act and issuance of cheque is not disputed and notice was issued and no reply was given and also it is the specific case of the complainant that when the materials are purchased based on the purchase order and the amount of the material purchased was also not paid. Even though this transaction is of year 2021 we are in the year 2026 and except purchasing the material, not done anything by the revision petitioner to pay the amount. Under this circumstances, question of considering this revision petition does not arise and this Court can only exercises the revisional powers in respect of legality and correctness of the judgment and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence also question of considering the same does arise and no ground is made out to entertain this revision petition and the same is dismissed. 6. In spite of this Court considered the matter, the counsel for the petitioner insisted the Court to pass an order in his favour wasted the precious time of the Court and hence, imposed the cost of `25,000/- and the same is payable within - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29214 CRL.RP No. 504 of 2026 two weeks from date. If cost is not paid, list this matter for recovery of the amount on 02.07.2026. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37