- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 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. 411 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. MR. AFSAR AHMED S/O BASHA, AGED 46 YEARS, VIDHYA BHARATHI SCHOOL, GOWRI KALUVE, CHIKMAGALURU CITY,PIN-577 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H MALATESH,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHUBHA KANTHARAJ W/O LATE KANTHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O SINGARI NILAYA ROAD, NEAR KAVERI WATER SUPPLY VIJAYAPURA EXENSION, CHIKMAGALURU CITY,PIN-577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIKAS M.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 24.11.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.1046/2020 AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 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 Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This matter is listed for admission. 3. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the trial Court are that accused had business dealings with the complainant in that relationship, he received an amount of Rs.6,65,000 and towards the same, he issued a cheque dated 08.05.2019 and when the cheque was presented, it was dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the notice was given to the accused and reply was also given by him and failed to comply with the demand. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused and cognizance was taken and accused was secured. He pleaded not guilty and claims the trial. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 4. In order to prove her case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6 including the reply notice. The accused also examined three witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 3 and also got marked 7 documents as Exs.D1 to D7. The trial Court considering the reply notice as well as the documents which have been produced at ‘D’ series and contention of the accused that Ex.P6- reply notice issued by the accused to the notice at Ex.P3 disclose that the accused specifically denied the alleged the issuance of cheque to the complainant for an amount alleged in the notice. However, it is contend that the complainant is carrying chit fund, in the year 2016, she conducted chit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). The manager of the accused company by name Sampath Kumar-D.W.3 was the member of the chit fund, upon request of his employee, the accused took a security to the chit transactions. Since his employee became defaulter and was due for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 lakhs only) to the complainant. The accused has paid an amount of Rs.1,37,000/- (Rupees One lakh thirty seven thousand only) on 20.06.2017, Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) on 23.09.2017, Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) on 05.12.2017 and Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One lakh thirty seven thousand only) on 06.03.2018 in total Rs.6,37,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs thirty seven thousand only) through his manager Manju -D.W.2 under a cheque and vouchers. The accused has paid an excess of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only), however, the complainant fails to return the cheque, saying that the cheque has been misplaced. 5. The complainant was also subjected to cross- examination and in the cross-examination, she has deposed that she has studied B.A., course, doing agricultural and social work and she has got 18 acres of garden land in N.R.Pura Taluk and 35 persons are working in the said lands and she is filing income tax returns, paying income tax of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 only) per year but did not disclose the transaction alleged in the case in ITR. She further deposed that her husband is a retired bank employee and her son and daughter-in- laws are also working. About Rs.15,00,000/- is due to the complainant from 2 to 3 persons. She knows the accused for last 12 years and the accused is running a school and a company. She admits that she has received an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the office of accused through voucher on 05.12.2017 and the relevant voucher is marked as Ex.D1. The advocate for accused has suggested that Manju- D.W.2 and Sampath- D.W.3 are known to complainant. D.W.2-Manju participated in the chit conducted by the complainant and he took the chit amount, by the time to give surety as demanded by complainant he issued the cheque to the accused, no transaction had taken place between the complainant and accused and the accused is having no due to the complainant. These suggestions are denied by the complainant/PW1. P.W.1 also denied the payments - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 which have been mentioned and also the vouchers. The trial Court taking into note of the evidence of complainant as well as the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3, also the contents of Ex.P6, wherein it is admitted that there was a chit transaction between D.W.2 and the complainant and also made the payment. But D.W.1 denies the signature on the cheque before the Court and the said Cheque was not issued and the cheque was forged by D.W.2. The trial Court taking into note of variance in the reply notice as well as in the evidence of P.W.1, comes to the conclusion that the very case of the accused cannot be accepted. particularly in paragraph No.23, where in categorically discussed with regard to taking of chit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) and also categorically admitted that there was a due to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and also payment was made. Hence, it comes to the conclusion considering the document of Exs.D1 to D6 that except the payment of Rs.30,000/-, other documents are denied. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 6. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, the averments made in the notice as well as the evidence before the Court, it is the specific case of the complainant that cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.6,65,000/-. The trial Court having accepted the evidence of complainant, convicted the accused and ordered to pay the amount on default sentence also. The appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record keeping the evidence of P.W.1 as well as Exhibit ‘P’ series as well as the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 which has been discussed in detail particularly in paragraph No. 28, taken note of the reply notice and also the evidence of P.W.1 in cross-examination in paragraph No.29, considering with the background of evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 and witnesses examined on accused side, their evidence contradicts the defence taken by the accused in the reply notice as well as in the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 thereby comes to the conclusion that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 evidence of the accused not inspires the confidence of the Court. 7. Now, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the evidence available on record. The trial Court and the appellate Court have failed to come to the conclusion that complainant does not have the financial capacity to pay the huge amount and also counsel would vehemently contend that the complainant has not produced any document to show that she lent the money to the tune of Rs.6,65,000/- towards the accused. But she has stated that she paid the amount through cash, but she failed to prove that what is the source of that cash amount and how she came to her possession of that huge sum. 8. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the documents are produced before the Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 as ‘D’ series and the same are not properly considered by the trial Court. 9. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent would vehemently contend that the very reply notice is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 and though denies that there was no transaction between the Company and the Director, but admits that there was a transaction between D.W.2 and the complainant and to clear the amount of D.W.2, the amounts are paid. 10. Having considered the submissions of the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent, the scope of the revision is very limited. If both the Courts fails to consider the evidence available on record and if the order suffers from its legality and correctness, then this Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction, that too in case of any miscarriage of justice. In the case on hand, having taken note of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 fact that the accused took the specific contention that there was a transaction between D.W.2 and the complainant and to clear that amount the amount was also paid. When the complainant denies the signature except the payment of Rs.30,000/- made in the year 2017 and cheque was given in 2019 as per Ex.P1 and in order to substantiate the same, vouchers which are marked as ‘D’ series. Further, when the specific denial was made by the complainant that the same not belongs to the complainant ought to have sent the same to the handwriting expert for having made the payment and the same is also not sent to the handwriting expert. Apart from that the very defence is contrary. In one breath says that amount was paid as per the reply notice. But in the evidence of D.W.1 that is contrary to the reply notice and even denied the very issuance of the cheque and cheque is forged and when the defence was taken that cheque was forged and the same is also not sent to the handwriting expert that there was no any transaction between the complainant and the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33660 CRL.RP No. 411 of 2023 accused. The said fact has not been substantiated and mere taking of defence is not enough and the examining D.W.1 to D.W.3 also not comes to the aid of the accused and the very averments made in the reply legal notice at Ex.P6 is contrary to the defence which was led before the trial Court. Hence, trial Court and the appellate Court do not accepted the contention of the accused. 11. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Therefore, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17