- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30689 CRL.RP No. 1837 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.1837 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MAHESH S/O SRI JOGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.157 GURU SARVABHOUMA NAGARA, KENCHANAHALLI GATE BEHIND THE CLUB (RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA ARCH) NAYANDAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560039 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SHANKAR PUJARI SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS WIFE SMT. PREMA W/O LATE SHANKAR PUJARI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.287/A, 5TH STAGE BEML LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BENGALURU-560098 …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS H/S V/O DT.03.06.2026) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30689 CRL.RP No. 1837 of 2025 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 09.06.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXI ADDL. CMM BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.12375/2020 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 09.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.12375/2020 by the Trial Court and the judgment of confirmation dated 15.10.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.1580/2022 by the Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The case of complainant before trial Court that the accused has approached the complainant for financial assistance and availed loan of Rs.9,70,000/- from the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. within three years. When accused failed to repay the amount within stipulated time, on repeated requests, issued the subject matter of Cheque for legally enforceable - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30689 CRL.RP No. 1837 of 2025 debt for an amount of Rs.9,70,000/-. When the same was presented, it got dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thus, legal notice was given and the same was served but no reply was given. When accused did not comply the demand of the complainant, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused even on appearance did not plead guilty. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, since the complainant was deceased, wife of the complainant examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that accused has failed to prove his case adducing rebuttal evidence and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 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 placed on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly considered the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30689 CRL.RP No. 1837 of 2025 material available on record while convicting the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that both the Courts have committed an error in considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and hence, interference of this Court is required. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the accused has issued subject matter of Cheque to the complainant towards legally enforceable debt and the same was dishonoured. The records discloses that the complainant has followed the procedure as per law while filing the complaint. Inspite of service of notice, the accused did not give any reply and even not cross examined PW1 and also not disputed the documents of Ex.P1 to P10 and there is no rebuttal evidence. Considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, both the Courts rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit this revision petition since there is no any rebuttal evidence as well as no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30689 CRL.RP No. 1837 of 2025 denial of case of complainant. The scope of revision is very limited. If the order of both the Courts suffers from any legality and correctness, then only, this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the same is not warranted. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN