- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30020 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1343 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI SEEGAMALLA NAYAKA S/O SEEGANAYAK AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MARIGUDI STREET PALYA VILLAGE KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571440 WORKING AS VILLAGE ASSISTANT TALUK OFFICE SATTEGALA VILLAGE KOLLEGAL TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571440 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ESHWARAPPA C M, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. VASANTHA KUMARI W/O K UDAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.14-98 CHRISTIAN STREET MUDIGUNDA KOLLEGAL TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571440 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P MAHADEVASWAMY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30020 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2025 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.5003/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA (SITTING AT KOLLEGALA) 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 22.01.2025 passed in C.C.No.1744/2021 by the Trial Court and also against the confirmation judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.5003/2025 by the Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused approached the complainant on 15.07.2021 at her residence of Mudigunda, Kollegala and requested to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as hand loan for the purpose of his legal necessity. The complainant made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and accused issued the post dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30020 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2025 cheque for the said amount and promised to repay the same and also assured that it will be honoured within 3 months. But did not repay the amount. When the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘account closed’ and same was communicated to the accused but he failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, the complainant issued the legal notice and the same was acknowledged by the accused but not given any reply. Hence, filed the complaint. Cognizance was taken and secured the accused. 4. The complainant in order prove her case, examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P9A. The accused also examined himself as DW1 and got marked the document at Ex.D1. In the evidence took the defence that cheque belongs to the accused but denies his signature. Accused not only denied the signature on Ex.P1 but also denied the signature on Ex.P6-acknowledgement and hence, the complainant got marked the vakalathnama of the accused as Ex.P8. The Trial Court taken note of all these factors into consideration and also the admission on the part of DW1 and also the defence that he has issued a signed cheque to one by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30020 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2025 name Manjunatha and the said Manjunatha has returned the same but the said Cheque was misused through the complainant. Hence, the Trial Court taken note that in one breath it is contended that the cheque was misused by the Manjunatha and in another breath it is contended that Cheque not contains the signature but admitted the signature even in the address. The Trial Court also considered that notice was issued and the same was served but not given any reply and the defence is also contrary. Thus, not accepted the defence of the accused and comes to the conclusion that accused has not made out any preponderance of probabilities and Trial Court convicted the accused. 5. The Appellate Court also reassessed the material available on record and considered the grounds urged in the appeal and also heard the complainant and accused. The Appellate Court taken note of the evidence of PW1 in paragraph 13 and also the defence in paragraph 14 and discussed the same holding that there is no rebuttal evidence. Though, accused had entered into the witness box, not made out any preponderance of probabilities to prove the case of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30020 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2025 complainant. The defence is contrary to each other. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that both the courts have committed an error and not properly appreciated the material available on record and erroneously appreciated and defence which was taken. Hence, it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional powers. 7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent submits that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly considered the matter taking note of the evidence and also the false defence which was taken wherein accused denied his signature on Ex.P1 but compared the same with the postal acknowledgment as well as Vakalathnama. The other defence which was taken by the accused that he had signed the blank cheque and given the same to one Manjunatha. Considering these factors, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused and the Appellate Court confirmed the said judgment. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30020 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2025 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the factual aspects of the case, it discloses that accused has borrowed the money and issued the cheque to that effect and the same was returned with an endorsement and notice was also served and no reply was given. During the cross-examination, contra defence was taken and even while giving the evidence before the Court, contra defence was taken that in one breath, not admits the signature on the cheque and in another breath, evidence was given that signed cheque was misused which was given to Manjunatha. These are the materials appreciated by both the Courts. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit this revision since there is very limited scope in the revision to evaluate the correctness and legality of the judgment and the same are not warranted in the case on hand. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN