- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35049 CRL.RP No. 1793 of 2025 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.1793 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. C.N. BABU, S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.52/B, LOCO COLONY, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.C. RAMESH, S/O LATE V.M. CHANDRAHASA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.34/A, LOCO COLONY, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSORE IN CRL.A.NO.150/2024 AND IN C.C.NO.3494/2018 DATED 26.02.2024 PASSED BY X ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35049 CRL.RP No. 1793 of 2025 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 case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that the accused and the complainant are very well acquainted with each other from past several years as both of them are working in the same department and residing in the same locality and on such acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant in the last week of December 2017 seeking financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for his legal necessities and to discharge the hand loans. The complainant considering his request, agreed to provide financial assistance to the accused and he paid an amount - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35049 CRL.RP No. 1793 of 2025 of Rs.2,00,000/-. The accused agreed to return the same within 3 to 4 months. After lapse of 4 months, the complainant asked for repayment of the said amount, but the accused postponed the same for one or the other reasons. On repeated insistence, finally the accused had issued a cheque dated 08.05.2018 in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. On presentation of the said cheque, the cheque was bounced with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, notice was issued and reply was given and the accused did not comply with the demand and hence, complainant was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 10(a). The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he also examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 3. The Trial Court having considered the defence which was taken, relied - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35049 CRL.RP No. 1793 of 2025 upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BASALINGAPPA v. MUDIBASAPPA reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418. The Trial Court also taken note of with regard to the financial capacity is concerned in paragraph No.20. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 has stated that he was getting salary of Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month and both of them are working in the very same institution and they are having acquaintance with each other. When the cheque was given, other defence was taken that cheque was stolen from his house. The Trial Court in paragraph No.21, with regard to the said defence, comes to the conclusion that how the possession of the cheque came into the hands of the complainant is not explained and there is no complaint for having lost the cheque and also no intimation is given to the bank that he lost the cheque and not to honour the cheque. Hence, the Trial Court did not accept the defence and comes to the conclusion that the evidence of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35049 CRL.RP No. 1793 of 2025 complainant is not rebutted and convinced the sentenced the accused. 4. The Appellate Court re-assessing the evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that it is clear from the evidence on record that the accused in order to repay the amount, issued the cheque in favour of the complainant and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption or to create doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the case of the complainant and cheque has been issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt. The Appellate Court in detail considered the evidence of P.W.1 in paragraph No.25 and also taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 in paragraph No.24. The accused did not dispute the fact that the complainant was also working in the very same department of the accused. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterates the very same grounds before this Court. The ground which has been taken with regard to the financial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35049 CRL.RP No. 1793 of 2025 capacity, is considered by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The learned counsel with regard to the cheque was stolen also reiterates the same before this Court also. When both the Courts met the very defence of the accused appreciating the evidence available on record, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition, unless the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29