- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33213 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.714 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SANDEEP BHAT S/O. VIJAYA BHAT AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT D.NO.201, 2ND FLOOR OPP. PADAVU COMPOUND NEAR BHADRAKALI TEMPLE PADAVU HIGH SCHOOL ROAD MANGALURU-575 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BIPIN RAI S/O. DURGAPRASAD RAI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT PRASAD NIVAS 1ST FLOOR, JAYASHREE GATE BIKARNAKATTE MANGALURU-575008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.58/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT D.K. MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22.02.2023 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33213 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.5724/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C IV COURT MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT BY ALLOWING THE INSTANT RP AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE. 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 and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that complainant and father of the accused are being close family friends to each other. As such, on several occasions, there were several transactions between the complainant and father of the complainant. As such, the accused has become familiar to the complainant and had approached the complainant by requesting him to give hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and the same was paid and he assured to repay the same. But, he did not repay the same and issue a Cheque towards repayment of the said amount. When the Cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33213 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2024 with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, legal notice was issued and the accused did not comply with the demand. Therefore, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken. 3. The complainant examined himself before the Trial Court and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P9 and accused also examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D3 and the only defence which was taken before the Trial Court is that he has issued the Cheque towards chit and the said cheque was given as security and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and even during the course of cross- examination of D.W.1, he categorically admits that to show that Cheque was given as security for the chit, he is not having any document. Apart from that, he has not examined any of the subscriber of the chit and even not given any stop payment on closure of the chit transaction and also not given any complaint to the police and the Trial Court also considered the admission on the part of D.W.1. The First Appellate Court also re- appreciated the same in paragraph No.20 while considering the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33213 CRL.RP No. 714 of 2024 evidence of D.W.1. and concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. 4. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to take note of the defence which was taken that Cheque was given towards security and the same was misused and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record. The Trial Court considered the evidence of accused in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the judgment and the First Appellate Court re- appreciated the same in paragraph No.20 of the judgment. Hence, in the absence of rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of N.I. Act, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise as the judgment not surfaces from any illegality and correctness and I do not find any ground to admit the revision. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35