- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31035 CRL.RP No. 1053 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1053 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. T.S. SHRINATH S/O T.P.SHRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT LAXMI NIVASA HOUSE KULKUNDA, SUBRAMANYA KADABA TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 221. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.D.SOMESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. SURAKSHA S/O LATE KANTARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT BEHIND KAVERI WATER SUPPLY SINAGRI NILAYA ROAD GOWRIKALUVE CHIKKAMANGALURU-577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIKAS M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.07.2024 IN CRL.A.NO.218/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, AND THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31035 CRL.RP No. 1053 of 2024 JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22.11.2023 IN C.C.NO.782/2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND MAY BE ACQUITTED THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. 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. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant is that accused had purchased pepper from the complainant and was due to pay Rs.5,08,100/- to the complainant. Towards payment of the said amount, the accused issued a Cheque and when the same was presented, it was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The legal notice was given, the same was served and the accused gave reply to the legal notice, but did not meet the demand made in the legal notice. Hence, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31035 CRL.RP No. 1053 of 2024 complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims for trial. 4. Hence, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8 and accused also examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D4. 5. The Trial Court taken note of defence that incomplete document was given and the same was misused and also other defence is that Cheque was given in favour of Nanda Mallara and he did not return the Cheque and the same was misused. Having taken note of the said defence also, the Trial Court considered the evidence of D.W.1 in paragraph No.18 and also in paragraph Nos.19, 20, 21 and 22 and the said defence was not substantiated. Hence, comes to the conclusion that there is no rebuttal evidence before the Court and therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused. 6. The order of the Trial Court is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.218/2023. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31035 CRL.RP No. 1053 of 2024 documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 in paragraph No.28 and also taken note of admission given by D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination with regard to Sections 20, 118 and 139 of N.I Act and comes to the conclusion that when the Cheque was issued giving liberty to fill up the same, now cannot contend that the same was not given in favour of the accused. When the suggestion was made to P.W.1 with regard to Cheque was misused and he denies the same and taken note that no action was taken against the said person, who had misused the Cheque and concurred with the finding. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not taken note of answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and he says that he was not having personal knowledge, but it is a case of purchase of pepper by the accused and having purchased pepper, Cheque was given towards sale consideration of the same. Hence, the very contention that he was not having personal knowledge cannot be accepted and both the Courts have taken note of the defence which was taken by D.W.1 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31035 CRL.RP No. 1053 of 2024 also during the cross- examination, taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1. When such being the case and well reasoned order has been passed by the Trial court and the First Appellate Court and also met the defence which was taken and the defence which was taken is not substantiated and when there is no preponderance of probabilities and there is no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of N.I. Act, question of exercising the revisional powers does not arise. The scope of revision is very limited and this Court can only examine the legality and correctness of the judgment. Hence, I do not find any circumstances warranting interference to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28