- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32512 CRL.RP No. 637 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.637 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GAUTAM SHESHRAO SABLE (AS PER AADHAR), GOWTHAM (AS PER APPELLATE COURT JUDGMENT), S/O SHESHRAO SABLE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2-C,-304, POWAI VIHAR COMPLEX, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SANTHOSH, S/O VIJAYA GANIGA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESDIING AT B.C. ROAD, VADERHOBLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHWIN JOYSTON KUTINHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 MADE IN CC NO.123/2023 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA AND JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2026 PASSED IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32512 CRL.RP No. 637 of 2026 CRL.A NO.556/2025 BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA). 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 Court earlier heard the matter at length and when this Court was about to dictate the order of dismissal of this revision petition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought time to make the settlement. Today the learned counsel for the revision petitioner makes the submission that there is no such settlement. 2. The ground urged before this Court is that P.W.2, who has been examined on behalf of P.W.1, was not knowing anything about the transaction between the complainant and the accused. Having considered the said submission and also looking into the cross-examination of P.W.2, nowhere he has disputed that he was not aware of the transaction and he specifically deposed before the Court that he was having the knowledge about this transaction and was not aware of other transaction. When such statement is made, nothing is disputed that he was not aware of the said transaction. When such being - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32512 CRL.RP No. 637 of 2026 the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and nothing is placed on record to substantiate the defence. The scope and ambit of revision is very limited. Only in case both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the material as well as in case of miscarriage of justice, this Court can exercise the revisional powers. The scope is only to look into the orders of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in detail taken note of the material on record and the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 considered the defence that the accused lost the cheque and intimated the same to the concerned authorities. But he has not issued any stop payment to the concerned bank authority and also not made any efforts to prove the said fact by summoning the documents from the concerned authorities for having intimated the same. A reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record particularly, the defence which was taken, in paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20 considered the admission of cheque and signature and failing to prove the possession of cheque in the hands of the complainant and the accused failed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32512 CRL.RP No. 637 of 2026 to rebut the presumption as enumerated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a definite finding is given in paragraph No.20 by the Appellate Court. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submits that P.W.1 is examined and documents are marked through P.W.1, but not marked the documents through P.W.2 and the same is also not considered. The learned counsel not disputes the fact that when the documents of the complainant were marked through P.W.1, the question of once again marking of the documents through P.W.2 does not arise and hence, I do not find any ground in the second ground of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that P.W.2 not spoken about the same. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and the impugned order does not suffer from its legality and correctness. 4. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15