- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 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.572 OF 2020 BETWEEN: B.K.YALLAPPA S/O LATE KALLAPLPA BEDRE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O SHIVANAKERE VILLAGE BASAVANASHIVANAKERE POST CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT NOW R/AT VENKATESHWARA NILAYA BANASHANKARI BADAVANE 3RD MAIN ROAD BEHIND RUDSET INSTITUTE CHITRADURGA TOWN – 577501 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE) AND: NARASIMHAMURTHY T S/O THIMMASHETTY K N AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCCUPATION AGIRULTURIST R/AT HOSAYALANADU VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRDURGA DIST.- 577599 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SPECIAL 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.37/2019 DATED 27.07.2020 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR SETTLEMENT, 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 12.04.2019 passed in C.C.No.1289/2018 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment dated 27.07.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.37/2019 by the Appellate Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the Trial Court is that accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a hand loan from the complainant for his legal necessities on 28.02.2017 agreeing to repay the same - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 within 2 months from the date of borrowing of the said amount. In order to discharge his liability, accused has given post-dated cheque mentioning the date as 27.04.2017 for Rs.5,00,000/-. Though accused assured the complainant that he will keep the sufficient funds to honour the cheque, when the cheque was presented on 28.04.2017, it was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Immediately, the complainant issued the legal notice and the same was served to the accused and accused knowingfully well that he has issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs.5,00,000/-, not maintained the amount in his account. Only with an intention to cheat the complainant, he has issued the cheque. Accused has also given the reply stating that cheque was stolen. Hence, a complaint was given and cognizance was taken. Accused was secured before the Court and he did not plead guilty. 4. The complainant in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P9. The accused was subjected to 313 statement but not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 considered the case of the complainant, in detail discussed in paragraph 18. The first defence of the accused is that cheque was stolen. For that, the Trial Court held that why he had kept the blank cheque with his signature has not been explained. The second defence of the accused is that complainant was not having any capacity to lend the money and only confronted the document of Ex.D1 that is standing in the name of mother of the complainant and half of the land is standing in the name of his uncle. The same must taken note of. The other defence is that note of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- were banned and bank has restricted to withdraw the amount more than Rs.24,000/-. The counsel produced the RBI notification to that effect and contend that the question of payment of Rs.5,00,000/- does not arise. The Trial Court taking note of the defences which have been taken, comes to the conclusion that the same has not been substantiated since the accused has not led any defence evidence and not elicited anything in the cross examination of PW1. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of the evidence, considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the fact that cheque was stolen, accused has not given any complaint and also not given any direction to the bank for stop payment and in reply notice also except stating that he has kept the cheque in the cash box, nothing is stated that it was stolen. Hence, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the Court cannot comes to the conclusion that accused has not committed the offence as alleged by the complainant 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 committed an error in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 appreciating the materials available on record. The complainant not at all pleaded in the complaint that he was having only Rs.2,70,000/- which he got as a compensation from the KPTCL for laying of electricity line and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- from his friend and not at all stated in the sworn statement and also in chief examination about the same. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that the complainant was having the capacity to lend the money. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the complainant was not having capacity to pay the money upto Rs.5,00,000/-, both the Courts ought not to have come to the conclusion that he was having capacity. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the Trial Court considered the materials available on record in paragraphs 18 to 22 and Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court particularly taking note that in the reply notice except stating that he had kept - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 the cheque signed in the cash box, not stated that it was stolen. An inconsistent statement which was taken also appreciated. Hence, interference of this Court does not required. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that accused did not dispute the cheque which contains his signature and admits his signature and also the cheque. But only contention that it was stolen. The first defence of the accused is that cheque was stolen and the same was met by the Trial Court while considering the material on record holding that the accused neither in the written argument nor at the time of cross-examination of PW1 stated that why he had kept the blank cheque with his signature in the cash box in his shop and he did not know this fact till he receives the notice from the complainant. Even after receiving the notice also he had not lodged any complaint. The Trial Court also taken note of with regard to the capacity to lend the money in paragraph 19. At the time of cross-examination, accused counsel himself confronted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 the records of right pertaining to the Survey No.48 that is marked as Ex.D1. It shows that complainant is having agricultural land and also he categorically says that he is getting income from coconut and arecanut trees. The complainant also for the first time has deposed before the court that he has received an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- compensation and for remaining amount, he availed the same from his friends. The other defence also with regard to the RBI guidelines for withdrawing of amount is concerned and the same is discussed in paragraph 20. Both the courts have taken note of issuance of cheque and no dispute with regard to the signature and also reply was given which is contrary to the defence. But nowhere it is stated that the cheque was stolen by the complainant when he had visited his shop. But only it is stated that he had kept the signed Cheque in the cash box. What made him to keep the cheque signed that too a blank signed cheque in the cash box, no explanation was given. When such being the case, both the courts have rightly considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record. Hence, I do not find any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33664 CRL.RP No. 572 of 2020 ground to come to another conclusion to admit this revision when there is no rebuttal evidence except cross examination of PW1 and nothing is elicited with regard to his defence. No complaint was given when the cheque was stolen and when the same came to his knowledge. Under the circumstances, there is no ground to admit this revision petition. Unless the order of both the courts suffers from illegality and correctness, this Court cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction and no such circumstance is warranted in the case on hand. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN