- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30472 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2026 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. 953 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAGARAJU M N S/O NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.35, 4TH MAIN, SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, SIDEDAHALLI, BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASU K,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA. M S/O R. MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.128, 6TH CROSS, SHESHADRI NAGAR, SIDEDAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED BY THE XX ADDL.CMM AT BENGALURU IN CC NO.20673/2022 AND JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LD LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-61) IN CRL.A Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30472 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2026 NO.1533/2023 AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM 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 matter is listed for admission. 2. The factual matrix of the case of complainant is that the accused is known to complainant since many years. On 02.11.2016, the accused had availed hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- through Cheque for purchase of a house and agreed to return the same within three years. The accused had not paid the said amount the complainant in time. Hence, the complainant demanded the accused to return the said amount. The accused told that the documents had been pledged at bank and by selling the property, the accused will return the money and took another Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash to discharge the property paper. But, till today, the accused had not paid the total loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30472 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2026 further alleged that at the time of lending the loan amout, the accused has agreed to repay the same within time and issued Cheque as security for the said loan amount with the condition that, it should be returned to the accused after clearance of hand loan amount. Inspite of several demand, the accused did not repay the said hand loan amount. Thereafter, the complainant presented the Cheque for encashment and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 07.04.2022 and the same was served to the accused on 08.04.2022. The accused neither reply to the said notice nor repay the loan amount. Hence, the case is registered against the revision petitioner. By considering the evidence and material available on record, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short) in C.C.No.20673/2022 which was confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1533/2023. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30472 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2026 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 4. The trial Court while considering the material on record particularly, the Cheque which was given by the revision petitioner marked as Ex.P1, bank endorsement at Ex.P2, legal notice at Ex.P3 and served as per Ex.P5. No reply was given by the accused and even there is no cross-examination of P.W.1. He has not led any defence evidence and there is no rebuttal evidence before the Court as per Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 so also there is no denial of issuance of Cheque and the appellate Court confirms the order of the trial Court. 5. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and question of considering this revision does not arise since there is no cross examination and there is no rebuttal evidence. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30472 CRL.RP No. 953 of 2026 scope of revision is only to examine whether the orders of both Courts suffer from its legality and its correctness. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49