- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32178 CRL.RP No. 287 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. 287 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. SHAMSHUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.ASIAN HARDWARE, AT NO.26, ANNIPURA MAIN ROAD, SUDHAMANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. AND ALSO DURING BUSINESS SRI. SHAMSHUDDIN, M/S HITECH METAL FOLD, NO.9/1, EZEKEL INDL. AREA, OPP. TO MASJID TAUHID, A.C.POST, KADUGONDONAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESHA N., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. S.R.STEELS, AT NO.9/15-1, 1ST CROSS, POTTERS COLONY, KALASIPALYAM NEW EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 002. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32178 CRL.RP No. 287 of 2026 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. SADIQ PASHA, S/O MOHAMMED AMEERJAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2026 IN CRL.A.NO.1416/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-53) IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.7715/2019 DATED 02.09.2023 PASSED BY THE XIII ACMM BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER The matter is listed for admission and this Court issued notice against the respondent. The respondent was served and un-represented. 2. Having perused the admission on the part of P.W.1 which is extracted by the Trial Court while considering the case of the complainant in paragraph No.19, D.W.1 categorically - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32178 CRL.RP No. 287 of 2026 admitted the business transaction with the complainant for repayment of balance amount and also he has issued Exs.P.12- 13. Once he has admitted that he has issued cheque towards the liability and the same is considered by the Trial Court. Even Appellate Court also while considering the material on record, in paragraph No.23 re-assessed the material available on record, both oral and documentary evidence. 3. There are catena of decisions rendered by the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, nothing is rebutted and the revision petitioner is very clear with regard to the liability . 4. Under the circumstances, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Hence, revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54