- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33656 CRL.RP No. 696 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.696 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI JOEL ALEXANDER S/O SIMON DEVADASS AGE 51 YEARS NO.212, COLOSSEO VENTURES BEHIND I O C BANK MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU-37 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESHA N, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MANOJ S/O JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BAHUMUKI MEDIA AND EVENTS NO.94/B, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN OPP GOVT SCHOOL NEAR KALIKAMBA TEMPLE KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BENGALURU-560060 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NATARAJU T, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33656 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2025 CRL.A.NO.1285/2022 ON THE FILE OF LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC. 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 dated 17.09.2022 passed in C.C.No.8177/2020 and also against the judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.1285/2022. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused is known to him and accused has approached him for financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- for the project Elysium Villa which is forming by M/s ASCC group represented by the accused on the capacity of GPA holder in the first week of June, 2018. Considering the request of the accused, the complainant lent an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused. In this regard, they have entered into an agreement dated 11.06.2018. It is further contended that the accused has undertaken to repay the said amount with an additional amount - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33656 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2025 of Rs.5,00,000/- within 15.12.2018. In additional to that, accused has also executed a registered agreement of sale dated 11.06.2018 in favour of the complainant as collateral security to the said amount. The accused has issued a Cheque for Rs.15,00,000/-. When accused did not return the amount as agreed, the complainant approached him and accused issued cheques towards his liability. When two cheques for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each were presented, the same were returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant demanded for repayment of the said dishonoured cheques amount issuing a legal notice and the said notice was served on the accused but did not reply to the said notice. Hence, filed the complaint and cognizance was taken. Accused was secured and he did not plead guilt. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and also examined one more witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P16. On the other hand, the accused has not led defence evidence and not produced any documents to prove his case. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the complainant has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33656 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2025 proved the guilt of the accused that the accused is liable to pay the amount covered under the cheques. There is no substance in the probable defence of the accused, whereas the complainant has discharged his burden and proved the guilt of the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record comes to the conclusion that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper and there is no irregularity committed by the Trial Court in convicting the accused and the order of the Trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 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 judgment of the Trial Court is illegal and one sided since not at all given opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. The Appellate Court also after hearing the arguments - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33656 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2025 of the respondent, hurriedly passed the judgment without giving opportunity to the petitioner and blindly confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, both the Courts committed an error in convicting the petitioner/accused. Hence, interference of this Court is required. 8. The counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not committed an error in considering the material available on record and rightly convicted the petitioner. Hence, the judgments of both the Courts do not suffers from any illegality or correctness. Hence, interference of this Court does not require. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the Trial court taken note of the fact that when the notice was issued, the same was served, but reply was not given. The accused has admitted the issuance of subject matter of cheques at Ex.P1 and P2 but no defence of rebuttal is adduced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court and also the Appellate Court considered the material available on record in a proper perspective. The fact that cheque was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Notice also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33656 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2025 served. The Trial Court also taken note of judgments of the Apex Court while convicting the petitioner. The Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of evidence taken note of the principle laid down in judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in the case of RANGAPPA VS MOHAN. The specific case of the complainant that he has paid the Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused who has invested the said amount in a villa project which is formed by M/s ASCC group represented by the accused on the capacity of GPA holder. Accused also suggested to PW1 during his cross-examination at paragraph 3 that there was a talk during June 2018 regarding investment in M/s ASCC group. It also suggested that from 11.06.2018 to 16.06.2018, the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further suggested that it was agreed that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has to be returned with profit of Rs.5,00,000/-. PW1 has clearly stated that the sale agreement with respect to the Villa was executed only as a security. Though it is suggested to PW2 that it was agreed between the accused and complainant that only if the sale agreement is cancelled, the amount of the complainant has to be refunded, the same is denied by PW2. Thus, in the cross examination of PW1 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33656 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2025 PW2, nothing is elicited and nothing is substantiated in the defence evidence. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition for the reason that the judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court do not suffers from its legality and correctness. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN