- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29219 CRL.RP No. 1732 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. 1732 OF 2025 BETWEEN: AMOGHA KARUNADU POORNASEVA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD., NO.78, SHRIHARI TOWERS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032 REP. BY ITS MANAGER AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. D. SHANKAR, MAJOR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. WOODTECH CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NO.31/2, NADEKERAPPA, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR PEENYA 2ND STAGE, VISWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091 REP. BY ITS SENIOR H.R. MANAGER, MR. SOMASHEKAR K R AGED 38 YEARS. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 06.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LX Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29219 CRL.RP No. 1732 of 2025 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61) IN CRL.A.NO.1757/2024 CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXVIII ACJM, BENGALURU CITY DATED 10.07.2024 IN C.C.NO.27838/2021 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 counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The factual matrix case of the complainant before the trial Court is that the complainant is doing woodworking machineries business and accused is a financial institution. The complainant is in need of financial assistance to develop its business. Accordingly, the complainant approached the accused for financial assistance to the tune of `10 crore. The accused - Bank has agreed to sanction the said loan and insisted the complainant to enter into a loan agreement dated 22.01.2021. The complainant entered into a loan agreement as instructed by the accused. Apart from this, the accused has insisted the complainant to deposit 10% of the said loan amount. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29219 CRL.RP No. 1732 of 2025 complainant has agreed to the terms and believing the words of the accused, has deposited a sum of `01 crore vide FD No.159 dated 22.12.2020. After that complainant waited hoping that accused will sanction the loan. But the accused neither sanctioned the loan nor refunded the said amount. Further stated that the accused in order to create cheat to the complainant, has not sanctioned the loan and not even ready to respond positively. It is contended that complainant demanded the accused to pay back the said fixed deposit amount. Then the accused issued the subject matter of the cheque for an amount of `01 crore with the covering letter and instructed to present the same. When the cheque was presented before the Bank, the same was dishonoured on 28.06.2021 with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Then complainant got issued the notice to pay the cheque amount and said notice was duly served on 30.03.2021; that accused did not comply with the demand and hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. He was secured and he did not plead guilty and the trial Court considered the evidence of PW1 and also the admission and there was no any rebuttal evidence before the Court, convicted the accused for an amount of `75,00,000/- and he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29219 CRL.RP No. 1732 of 2025 also imposed default sentence. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court also concurred the same. 4. Considering the material available on record, there was no dispute with regard to the issuance of cheque and also the transaction and also admission that case was compounded subject to condition that accused has to pay `75,00,000/- by way of two installments i.e. `37,50,000/- on 16.07.2024 as first installment and `37,50,000/- on 01.08.2024 as second installment and the same was not honoured and the same also taken note of joint memo terms and failed to comply the same. 5. Now the counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that both the Courts have committed an error and also counsel would contend that Directors and persons in charge of the business of the accused society were not arrayed as parties. There is no proper authorization to the authorized person to file the complaint and to represent and lead evidence on behalf of the accused. The judgment of the conviction was passed and both the Courts have committed an error in non-applying of Section 141 of the N.I. Act and hence, it requires interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29219 CRL.RP No. 1732 of 2025 6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and considering the material available on record, particularly the evidence of PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P7, and no rebuttal evidence, and presumption was drawn under Section 118 of the N.I. Act. When there is no rebuttal evidence and also material available before the Court also very clear that parties have filed the joint memo and contents of the joint memo are not disputed by the parties to the lis, the same is taken note of by both the Courts. The trial Judge also convicted the accused in terms of the joint memo wherein categorically admitted the liability of `75 lakh also sought two installments and the same is payable on 16.07.2024 and 01.08.2024 but the same was not done and accused had defaulted in payment of the agreed amount to the complaint and when such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the trial Court and appellate Court in convicting the accused and sentencing and the ground that Section 141 of the N.I. Act is not considered cannot be accepted in view of the Joint Memo. 7. Under the circumstances, when the accused categorically admitted the liability of `75,00,000/- and also filed the joint - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29219 CRL.RP No. 1732 of 2025 memo and not disputed the joint memo, question of considering the same in this revision petition does not arise the same is not suffers from any legality and correctness and no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30