- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35052 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.671 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. R. MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O R. RUDRAPPA, RESDING AT NO.811, 9TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, ARAVINDANAGAR, MYSURU-570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SATHISH, S/O SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.271, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, ’M’ BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTIO 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.276/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35052 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2024 18.07.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU IN C.C.NO.1989/2015, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT. 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 matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused and the complainant both are known to each other since several years. In the third week of January 2013, the accused approached the complainant for financial assistance and borrowed hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for his legal necessity and agreed to repay the same within second week of March. After lapse of second week of March, the complainant approached the accused and demanded to repay the loan amount. At that time, the accused has issued the subject matter of the cheque. When the said cheque was presented, the same was not honoured and was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, legal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35052 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2024 notice was issued and reply was also given in terms of Ex.P.9. When the demand was not complied, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claimed the trial. 3. The complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint in his evidence and he was subjected to cross- examination and in the cross-examination, only defence was taken by the accused that he has borrowed the amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.12,000/- and Rs.14,000/- on 02.09.2008, 16.09.2008 and 13.09.2008 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum and along with interest, he repaid the same and the same is reiterated in his evidence also when he was examined before the Trial Court. In the cross-examination, nothing is elicited from the mouth of the complainant for having borrowed only that much of amount and rate of interest is paid. The Trial Court in paragraph No.17, particularly taken note of the suggestion made to P.W.1 and also extracted the cross- examination of D.W.1 in paragraph No.18 and comes to the conclusion that the defence of the accused is not substantiated and the evidence of the complainant is not rebutted and hence, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35052 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2024 convicted and sentenced the accused. The Appellate Court also taking into note of the very case of the complainant and also the defence in paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20, re-appreciated the material on record and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts failed to take note of the defence for having availed the amount and also repaid the amount. But in order to prove the fact of repayment of amount, nothing is placed on record except the defence and defence remains as a defence. 5. When such being the case, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court applied its mind and also appreciated the same and not found any admission on the part of P.W.1. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, he admitted with regard to the transaction between himself and the complainant. But his only contention is that he has not availed the loan of Rs.2,50,000/-. But what made him to give a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is not substantiated and also the evidence of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35052 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2024 complainant is not rebutted and hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23