- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32732 CRL.RP No. 1110 of 2023 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.1110 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI KUMAR NAIKA @ DINESHA S/O CHANDRA NAIKA AGED 36 YEARS R/OF HOSAHALLI THANDYA AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577228 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOVINDARAJ K, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI H C HALAPPA S/O LATE H N CHANNABASAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/O HUNASAGHATTA VILLAGE AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P, ADVOCATE) This CRL.RP is FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 of CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.231/2022 DATED 04.03.2023 and etc. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32732 CRL.RP No. 1110 of 2023 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 of conviction and sentence dated 08.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.86/2019 by the Trial Court as well as the judgment of confirmation of the conviction dated 04.03.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.231/2022 by the Appellate Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from the complainant by way of cash in the house of the complainant for digging borewell and to make fertile his arecanut garden and to meet his family necessities on 06.06.2018 agreeing to repay the same within few months and also issued the subject matter of cheque. When the said Cheque was presented, the same was returned with an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32732 CRL.RP No. 1110 of 2023 endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The same was intimated by the complainant to the accused giving a legal notice and the same was served on the accused and reply was also given, but did not make payment. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured but he did not plead guilty. 4. In order prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. The accused also examined himself as DW1 and produced the documents at Ex.D1 and D2. The Trial Court taking into note of the defence held that in one breath, DW1 says that no such transaction and in another breath, he admits that he has issued three cheques. In the cross-examination, accused categorically admits that when the cheque was presented, he was not having money hence, the subject matter of cheque was bounced. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in detail comes to the conclusion that accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and hence, the accused was convicted and sentenced. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32732 CRL.RP No. 1110 of 2023 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo comes to the conclusion that Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and the order of the Trial Court does not requires any interference. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 7. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the complainant has no financial capacity to pay the amount and both the Courts have failed to consider both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in the proper perspective. Hence, interference of this Court is required. 8. The counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts have rightly considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and there is no perversity in the finding of both the Courts. Hence, interference of this Court does not required. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32732 CRL.RP No. 1110 of 2023 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the complainant claims that accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from him and also paid Cheque in that regard which was dishonoured. The accused claims that the complainant has no capacity to pay the amount and same is not acceptable since accused has failed to prove the said fact and there is a clear averment with regard to receipt of amount by the complainant. Now, the counsel appearing to the petitioner would vehemently contend that only an amount of Rs.50,000/- was borrowed and the same was repaid but the complainant did not return the cheque. Such being the case, accused has not taken any steps when the cheque was not returned. In one breath, accused says that there was no such transaction but in another breath, he says that he has borrowed only an amount of Rs.50,000/-. When such defence was taken, the same ought to have been rebutted by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court but the same has not been done. Apart from that, counsel appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court to the clear admission on the part of DW1 in the cross examination wherein - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32732 CRL.RP No. 1110 of 2023 he categorically admitted that when the subject matter of the cheque was presented, the same was dishonored on account of no money in the account. When such admission is available on record, the Trial Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 discussed in detail the facts of the case and the Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record, discussed the facts in paragraphs 17 to 19 and held that accused has failed to establish that the defence which he has taken is contra defence. Under such circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with finding of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. This Court can exercise the revisional powers only if the orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court suffer from its legality and correctness but in the case on hand, no such circumstances is warranted. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN