- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30686 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2025 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.541 OF 2025 BETWEEN: AKRAM PASHA S/O GHOUSEPEER AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A UPPARPET VILLAGE AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH N V, ADVOCATE) AND: K A RAJAREDDY S/O LATE NARASIMHALU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A WARD NO.13 TANK BUNK ROAD CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563125 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 25.01.2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.03/2024 ON THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30686 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2025 FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA SITTING AT CHINTAMANI 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 dated 13.12.2023 passed in C.C.No.323/2022 by the Trial Court and against the judgment dated 25.01.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.3/2024 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 accused approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay the said amount within three months. But the accused did not repay the amount and issued the Cheque. When the said cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement that ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued the legal notice and the same was served. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30686 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2025 But the accused has not replied to the legal notice and also did not pay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and secured the accused and he did not plead guilty. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. PW1 has been cross-examined but not led any defence evidence and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1. Hence, the Trial Court accepted the case of complainant and convicted the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, in paragraph 18, taken note that accused has failed to prove before the Trial Court that Ex.P1 is not belonging to his account. As per Ex.P3 to P5, the legal notice issued to the accused is served. Thus, the complainant has followed all the procedures before filing the complaint against the accused. The only defence was taken with regard to the capacity of the complainant as he was not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30686 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2025 having the money. But the same is not rebutted. Hence, the Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the complainant was not having capacity to lend the money of Rs.3,00,000/- and the same is taken note of by the trial Court but convicted the petitioner. Hence, interference of this Court is required. 8. The counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts have rightly considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and not committed any error while convicting the accused. Hence, 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 defence of the accused is that the complainant is not having capacity to lend the amount. But to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30686 CRL.RP No. 541 of 2025 substantiate the said defence, nothing is placed on record. Mere taking of defence is not enough and the same has to be rebutted under Section 139 of N.I. Act and the same is not substantiated and even not led any defence evidence and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1. Under the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to admit the revision petition. The scope of revision is very limited. This Court has to examine only the legality and correctness of the judgment of both the Courts and the same is not warranted in the case on hand. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN