- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30685 CRL.RP No. 619 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.619 OF 2024 BETWEEN: LAXMAN NARAYAN RATHOD S/O NARAYAN CHAYAPPA RATHOD AGED ABOUT 55 YERS R/O PEBBLES PARTMENT 307, 3RD FLOOR KRISHINAGARA, 2ND MAIN 1ST CROSS, NAVULE SHIVMOGGA – 577201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K V SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: BABU NAIK S/O SEETHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O HUCHARAYA COLONY VINOABANAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K PRANESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.05.2024 IN CRL.A.NO.103/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30685 CRL.RP No. 619 of 2024 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 dated 28.07.2022 passed in C.C.No.1575/2021 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 02.05.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.103/2022 by the Appellate Court. 2. This petition 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 that on 06.02.2019, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant as a hand loan agreeing to repay the same with interest at 14% p.a. However, the accused failed to keep the promise and he has issued the cheque for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the said Cheque was presented, the same was returned within an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thus, notice was issued to the accused and the same was served. Inspite of it, accused neither paid cheque amount nor issued any reply. Hence, the complainant filed the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30685 CRL.RP No. 619 of 2024 complaint. The Trial Court took the cognizance and accused was secured before Trial Court and he did not plead guilty. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. Accused not produced any documents, however, examined himself as DW1. The defence which was taken is that the subject matter of the cheque was misused and to substantiate the same, nothing was placed on record. Except the oral evidence, there is no rebuttal evidence. The same has been taken note of by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also extracted the evidence available on record particularly the evidence of PW1 in paragraph 18. In paragraph 22, comes to the conclusion that inspite of defence was taken, the same was not substantiated and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court in paragraph 23 held that the accused is not an illiterate layman for issuing a blank signed Cheque. The accused is a doctor by profession and working as a medical officer in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30685 CRL.RP No. 619 of 2024 Motorcycle. Gann Hospital, Shivamogga. In paragraph 24 discussed about the issuance of notice and the same was acknowledged by the accused and not given reply to the same. The Appellate Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed by the accused before this Court. 7. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that even though the petitioner is a doctor, but circumstances made him to issue the cheque and the same is not in favour of the complainant but in favour of some other person and the same was misused. Hence, this Court has to consider the same when both the courts have failed to take note of the same. 8. The counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts have rightly considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and after detailed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30685 CRL.RP No. 619 of 2024 perusal of documentary evidence, convicted the accused. Hence, both the Courts have not committed any error while convicting the accused. Thus, interference of this Court does not require. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the petitioner is a doctor by profession and not an illiterate person. The very defence of the petitioner is not substantiated and also not rebutted under Section 139 of N.I. Act and issuance of cheque is also not disputed and even issuance of notice also not disputed and also admitted that not replied to the said notice. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN