- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32174 CRL.RP No. 792 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 792 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O ABDUL HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 3-26, KALAYI AMMUNJE POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 219. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K.I.HASAINAR, S/O SRI.K.IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.13-189/H(1), NANDARABETTU HOUSE, B.MOODA VILLAGE, JODUMARGA POST, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K DISTRICT - 574 219. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32174 CRL.RP No. 792 of 2026 DATED 05.03.2025 MADE IN C.C.NO.214/2023 BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, BANTWALA D.K AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.03.2026 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.216/2025 BY THE COURT OF III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K MANGALURU AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE. 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 matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This Court vide order dated 04.06.2026 directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the certified copy of the order sheet. On perusal of the order sheet, even though an opportunity was given to P.W.1 to cross examine the witness, the same was not availed. Though complainant was present on 22.05.2024, the accused was absent and exemption application was filed and the same was allowed. Cross examination was deferred and time was taken on the ground of settlement on several occasions. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32174 CRL.RP No. 792 of 2026 3. Even on 13.07.2024, 14.08.2024, 12.09.2024, the accused did not turn up. Hence on 12.09.2024, it was recorded as no grounds to adjourn the case and cross examination of P.W.1 was taken as NIL and then the case was posted for defence evidence. Even for defence evidence also when the case was posted, not led any defence evidence and the case was posted for arguments on 21.09.2024. Later once again an application was filed on 26.09.2024 and on 3.10.2024, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant was having no objection to allow the application. Hence the application was allowed with a cost of Rs.800/- and P.W.1 was recalled. 4. When P.W.1 was recalled on 22.10.2024 once again, the cross examination was not done. The case was adjourned to 14.11.2024 and on that day also the accused was absent. Again on 12.12.2024 P.W.1 and accused were absent. Exemption application were filed. To keep the presence of P.W.1 and accused, the case was posted to 17.01.2025. On the said date also both P.W.1 and accused were absent. Finally the case was posted to 25.02.2025 to secure the presence of P.W.1 and accused. On 25.02.2025, P.W.1 was present and accused was absent and there was no cross examination of the P.W.1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32174 CRL.RP No. 792 of 2026 5. Having taken note of the Order Sheet which is produced before the court which clearly discloses that, inspite of providing sufficient opportunity to cross examine P.W.1, even after allowing the recalling application, the same was not utilized. Now the learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner and seeks for an opportunity and question of giving an opportunity does not arise. 6. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to consider the revision petition as there is no material placed before this court also in not cross-examining the P.W.1 as well as not to lead any defence evidence, even after taking sufficient time for settlement, the same was not settled. 7. Under these circumstances, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence before the Court. This Court has to examine whether the order of the Trial Court suffers from any legality and correctness and the said circumstances is also not warranted, in view of no cross examination and no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32174 CRL.RP No. 792 of 2026 8. No ground is made out to consider the revision petition and the revision petition stands dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2026 does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68