- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30410 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1185 OF 2019 BETWEEN: MR. H. T. CHANNAIAH SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH GOVT EMPLOYEE AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.60, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN NEAR POLICE CHOWKI CHOWDESHWARINAGAR LAGGERE BENGALURU - 560 058 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G M ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. CHIKKANNA H C SON OF LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.340, 4TH CROSS CHOWDESHWARINAGAR LAGGERE BENGALURU - 560 058 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHESH S N, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30410 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2019 SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63), BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1390/2016 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 concurrent finding of the Trial Court passed in C.C.No.13316/2016 dated 07.11.2016 and the Appellate Court passed in Crl.A.No.1390/2016 dated 17.08.2019. 2. Though this matter is listed for final hearing, on perusal of the records, it discloses that the revision petition is not admitted. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused is very well known to the complainant since from several years. Accordingly, accused approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.8,00,000/- for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30410 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2019 personal needs and the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and the accused issued a post dated Cheque towards his legally enforceable debt. When the said Cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused calling upon him to repay the loan amount and accused replied to the said notice but did not repay the amount. Thus, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Cognizance was taken and secured the accused before the Court and he did not plead guilty and claims for trial. 5. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that complainant has not proved that he has paid the huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused, but comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- not an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and held that accused did not step into the witness box and failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove his case that he has only availed the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and he repaid the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30410 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2019 said amount with interest. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, accused failed to lead further cross-examination of PW1 to prove his case. Thus, the Trial Court allowed the case of the complainant in part and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,05,000/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also re-appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the complainant has established that the disputed Cheque has been issued by the accused for repayment of amount and held that the Trial Court has not committed any error in law or facts in convicting the accused and dismissed the appeal. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 8. The counsel for the petitioner/accused would vehemently contend that the specific defence was taken before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30410 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2019 the Trial Court that only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was received and at the time of getting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, blank cheques are given and the same has been misused and the Trial Court and the Appellate Court fail to consider the said fact. Hence, interference of this Court is required. 9. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would submit that the complainant/respondent was cross examined in part and not in full. Except making the suggestion that only Rs.1,00,000/- was received and the same was repaid along with the interest, not substantiated the same. Both the Courts have taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the accused claims that the specific defence was taken that he had borrowed only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and gave two blank cheques and also repaid the said amount along with interest. But to substantiate the same, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30410 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2019 no document is placed before the Court. The fact is that Ex.P1- cheque is not disputed. When the notice was issued, accused replied to the said notice wherein also categorically stated that he has availed only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Mere taking of the defence is not enough and the same has to be substantiated placing cogent material. It is also important to note that Trial Court made an observation that though cross examined PW1 in part, subsequently, not fully cross examined. When accused filed an application seeking permission for further cross-examination of PW1, Trial Court allowed the said application with cost. Inspite of the same, accused failed to further cross-examined PW1. Hence, the Trial Court taken further cross-examination of PW1 as Nil. Apart from that no defence evidence is also adduced by the accused. The accused once fails to elicit any answer from the mouth of PW1 with regard to his defence that he had received only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and he had repaid the said amount with interest placing cogent document, considering the case of the accused does not arise. The defence remains as defence only. Once the document of Ex.P1 - Cheque is admitted but in order to substantiate his defence, nothing is placed on record and there - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30410 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2019 is no any rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of Act. Under the circumstances, the question of considering the revision petition does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. 11. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an opportunity may be given and matter may be remitted to the Trial Court and the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the Trial Court has given sufficient opportunity to the accused when an application was filed for further cross-examination of PW1 imposing cost. But petitioner not paid the cost and even not cross examined PW1 further and also not entered to the witness box to prove his defence. Thus, even for remand also, petitioner not made out the case. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN