- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34126 CRL.RP No. 849 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.849 OF 2026 BETWEEN: H S JAYAKUMAR SON OF LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT VALAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 301 WORKING ADDRESS H.S. JAYAKUMAR PROPRIETOR: VASIJA & CO. NEW NO.4, 4TH CROSS MAJID ROAD, NAZARBAD MYSORE-570 010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: M R CHANDRU S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE BILIGERE HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 301 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34126 CRL.RP No. 849 of 2026 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED IN C.C. NO.31/2018 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NANJANGUD 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 12.06.2024 passed in C.C.No.31/2018 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment dated 10.02.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.246/2024 by the Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that both accused and complainant are acquainted with each other for a long time and out of the said acquaintance, the accused in the month of June 2016 has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for his business needs and urgent necessities. After receiving the said amount, accused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34126 CRL.RP No. 849 of 2026 had promised the complainant that he will repay the amount within a year and also he has issued the post-dated cheque towards his liability. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant issued the legal notice and he did not comply with the same. Hence, the complaint was lodged and cognizance was taken. Accused was secured and he did not plead guilty. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P7. On the other hand, accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D19. The Trial Court taking note of the admission and the part of accused during his cross-examination in paragraph 27, extracted the same with regard to the issuance of cheque wherein he admitted that he only filled up the cheque and the cheque is belongs to him and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is mentioned in the cheque and so also the same was given to the complainant and when the cheque was presented and the same was bounced with an endorsement insufficient funds. This - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34126 CRL.RP No. 849 of 2026 admission is very clear that the cheque is given in respect of the liability of the accused. Hence, convicted 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 prefered before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also on reassessing the material on record taken note that accused has admitted in the cross examination with regard to issuance of cheque towards his liability and the said cheque belongs to him and he only issued the said cheque to the complainant which was dishonoured and comes to the conclusion that when accused himself admitted the cheque, trial court has rightly convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and 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 both the courts have not considered both oral and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34126 CRL.RP No. 849 of 2026 documentary evidence in a proper perspective since there is no loan transaction between the complainant and the accused. Hence, interference of this court is required. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that accused has admitted in the cross examination with regard to issuance of cheque towards his liability and the said cheque belongs to him and he only written the said cheque and issued the same to the complainant which was dishonoured. When such admission is given by the accused himself, the question of considering the revision petition does not arise since the very admission clearly discloses liability of the accused and cheque was given towards the legally enforceable debt. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition since the order of both the courts do not suffers from any illegality and correctness. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN