- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34498 CRL.RP No. 1302 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1302 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. DEVAMMA W/O BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NAGARTHALLI VILLAGE RAYANAKERE POST JAIPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BOREGOWDA S/O ANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT AALAPATNA VILLAGE MALLIPATNA HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573102. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN, IN CRL. APPEAL NO.137/2021, DATED 08.01.2024 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34498 CRL.RP No. 1302 of 2024 AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUDU IN CC NO.307/2018 DATED 05.10.2021. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter was called in the morning, no representation. However, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared in the afternoon and made his submission. 2. The Trial Court has considered the defence of the accused and considering the same, in paragraph No.11(p) observed that with regard to Cheque was lost and also Cheque was stolen, complaint was given and the same was not produced before the Trial Court and no rebuttal evidence before the Trial Court with regard to the defence which was taken. Even the revision petitioner also not entered into the witness box and though the cross-examination of P.W.1 was made at length, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and Trial Court given the reasoning in paragraph No.11(p) as well as 11(q) and 11(r) that no rebuttal evidence before the Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34498 CRL.RP No. 1302 of 2024 3. The First Appellate Court also having taken note of material available on record, re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15. No doubt in reply notice marked at Ex.P1, an allegation is made that Mangalamma made a theft of Cheque book of accused and she has fabricated the Cheque and accused has not signed any Cheque. But, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, nowhere such suggestion has been put to P.W.1 and the same is considered in paragraph No.15 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court. When such reasoned order is passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to consider the revision petition and unless the reasoning of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness, the revisional power cannot be exercised. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16