- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1198 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. RAMAMURTHY, S/O. A. SANDIYAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.495, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANIVANNAN G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. V. GIRIDHAR, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 3460/1, WESLEY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 23.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU, IN CR.A.NO.24/2024 AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 24.11.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE V Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025 ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, IN C.C.NO.411/2017 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED IN C.C.NO.411/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. 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 had heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in part in the earlier occasion and today heard both the learned counsel. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that both the complainant and the accused are friends and having acquaintance with each other. The complainant for financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was requested by the accused in the month of February 2014, paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.02.2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2014 to the accused. The accused assured the complainant to repay the same within September 2014. In the month of September 2014, when the complainant demanded for repayment of the said amount, he issued the subject matter of the cheque dated 30.09.2014 for a sum of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025 Rs.5,00,000/-. When the same was presented, it was dishonored with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, a legal notice was issued and the same was served, but the accused did not give any reply and when he did not comply with the demand, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken, he was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to 6. P.W.1 was also cross-examined and the accused also examined two witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 4. It is the case of the accused that he only received an amount of Rs.50,000/- and paid the interest and not obtained any amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on different dates. The Trial Court considered the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the cheque, endorsement, legal notice and no reply was given and even considered the document Ex.P.6, which evidence the fact that before advancing the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, the amount was withdrawn from the bank by the complainant. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. D.W.2 is none other than the relative of the complainant, but he was having an enmity against the complainant and the same - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025 is also admitted that they were not in talking terms and hence, the Trial Court not accepted the case of the accused that he had availed only an amount of Rs.50,000/- and convicted and sentenced the accused. 3. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.24/2024. The First Appellate Court while re-assessing the evidence available on record, taken note of in paragraph No.16 with regard to the other cheque case and also the payment of Rs.21,500/-, which was deposited to the account of the complainant by the accused towards the interest. In this regard, the accused has produced Exs.D.1 to 3 and the same is discussed in paragraph No.17. In paragraph No.18, the First Appellate Court taken note of that no reply was given by the accused and there is no any rebuttal evidence though examined himself as D.W.1 and examined D.W.2 to prove the factum of preponderance of probabilities. Hence, the First Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that only payment of Rs.50,000/- was received and not the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025 petitioner not disputes the issuance of the cheque, but only contend that the cheque was misused. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that the Courts below failed to see that there was no actual lending of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.02.2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2014 and committed an error in accepting the document of Ex.P.6. The learned counsel would contend that when D.W.1 has led his evidence for having paid an amount of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,500/- in terms of Exs.D.1 to 3, the Trial Court ought to have accepted the case of the accused, but committed an error. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P.6(a) and (b), as per which an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was drawn on 08.02.2014 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was drawn on 29.03.2014 before making the payment in favour of the accused. The learned counsel would contend that the accused has not substantiated his defence that only an amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken and not Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025 the respondent, the accused disputes that he has taken only an amount of Rs.50,000/-, but record Ex.P.6 clearly discloses that on 08.02.2014, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant and in the month of February 2014 only payment of Rs.3,00,000/- was made in favour of the accused. It is the specific case of the complainant that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in two installments. On 29.03.2014, the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and payment of Rs.5,00,000/- is established by the complainant producing the document and hence, the very contention of the accused that he only received an amount of Rs.50,000/- is not substantiated. It is also important to note that if really the accused had availed an amount of Rs.50,000/- only, when the legal notice was issued, immediately he would have given the reply stating that he had received only an amount of Rs.50,000/- and not an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and no such reply was given. The complainant produced the document of cheque as well as Ex.P.6 bank passbook evidencing the fact that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- was drawn and paid to the accused. The accused though examined himself as D.W.1 and examined the witness D.W.2, but D.W.2 is an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025 interested witness and not substantiated the same. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record and this Court can exercise the powers of revision only if the order suffers from its legality and correctness and the same is not found. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21