- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32880 CRL.RP No. 469 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.469 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. UBEDUR REHAMAN, S/O FASLUR REHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT J.M. ROAD, MUDIGERE TOWN MUDIGERE TALUK-577132, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOWRABA JEEVALA L.M., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. THE CDCC BANK LTD., MUDIGERE BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, GIRISH H.R., S/O RUDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT MUDIGERE TOWN, MUDIGERE TALUK-577132, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32880 CRL.RP No. 469 of 2024 PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.01.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.151/2023 BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21.07.2023 PASSED IN C.C.NO.835/2021 BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND SENTENCING HIM TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1,25,000/- TO THE COMPLAINANT IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE AMOUNT SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE MONTHS. 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. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is absent and in the previous occasion also, the learned counsel was absent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the complainant is the banking institution registered under the KCSR, 1959 and having branch at Mudigere. The accused being in need of financial facility for his business, approached the complainant bank and upon the request of the accused, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32880 CRL.RP No. 469 of 2024 the complainant bank sanctioned loan to him. But the accused committed default in repayment of the loan amount and on demand of the complainant bank, he issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.98,017/- towards the discharge of the debt. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” and “drawee signature differs” as per the endorsement dated 06.07.2021. The same was orally brought to the notice of the accused and legal notice was issued and the same was duly served, but he did not comply with the demand or given any reply to the notice and hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The complainant examined the Bank Manager as P.W.1 in order to prove the issuance of cheque and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 5. The accused admitted that the cheque belongs to him of Mudigere branch and not disputed the signature on the cheque. Hence, the Trial Court invoked the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the cross-examination - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32880 CRL.RP No. 469 of 2024 of P.W.1, the defence counsel has not disputed that the accused has not availed any loan from the complainant bank as alleged by the complainant. The same was considered in paragraph No.15 of the judgment of the Trial Court and in paragraph No.16, taken note of Ex.P.3 notice issued to the accused and no reply was given. The Trial Court having considered the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused. 3. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.151/2023. The Appellate Court also having re-considered the material available on record in paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 33, comes to the conclusion that the accused has not disputed that Ex.P.1 cheque not belongs to the account maintained by him and not disputed his signature on the said Cheque. The Appellate Court also taken note of that the accused tried to rebut the presumption under Section 118 and 113 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, confirmed the order of the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32880 CRL.RP No. 469 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not pursuing the matter. The learned counsel is absent today also and in the previous date of hearing was also absent. 5. Having considered the grounds urged in the revision petition and also the reasoning of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39