- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34288 CRL.RP No. 995 of 2026 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. 995 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. M RAFIQ AHAMED S/O AHAMED SAB, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, FRUIT MERCHANT, R/AT J.C. ROAD, SAGAR TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKARA R V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAY KUMAR R S/O K. RAMU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT S.N. NAGARA, 1ST CROSS, SAGAR TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR DTD 25.02.2026 IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34288 CRL.RP No. 995 of 2026 CRL.A.NO.10047/2025, IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT ANNEXURE-A. b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SAGARA DTD 19.06.2025 IN CC.NO.505/2018, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT, BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and perused the impugned order. 2. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court are that the complainant and accused are well known to each other. On 20.02.2018, the accused approached the complainant and requested for hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to meet his urgent liabilities. Hence, the complainant advanced the said loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused. The accused had promised that he will return the said amount within three - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34288 CRL.RP No. 995 of 2026 months. After lapse of three months, the complainant requested the accused to repay the said loan amount. At that time, the accused issued a Cheque for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The said Cheque was presented by the complainant but the same was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ on 23.05.2018. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice on 11.06.2018 to the accused. The said notice was served on accused on 12.06.2018. Inspite of service of notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor repay the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is filed against the accused. The cognizance was taken and the accused was secured. He pleaded not guilty and claims trial. 3. In order to prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, the accused in order to rebut the case of complainant, got examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. The trial Court by considering the oral and documentary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34288 CRL.RP No. 995 of 2026 evidence, convicted and sentence the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’ for short). Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the appellate Court in Crl.Apl.No.10047/2025. The appellate Court also re-appreciated the evidence on record and confirms the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court in the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence on record. It is further contended that the trial Court fails to consider the aspect of financial capacity of the complainant. But the complainant has admitted in his cross examination that he is doing real estate business and selling and buying of motor bikes and cars. To that effect, he has not produced any document. On all these factors, the trial Court has erred in convicting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34288 CRL.RP No. 995 of 2026 and sentence the accused for the aforesaid offence and the appellate Court in turn confirms the same which requires interference by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, the only defence taken by the accused that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken from the father of complainant and the said amount was already paid and the cheque was not returned. In order to substantiate the said defence, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W1. During the course of cross-examination, D.W.1 himself has categorically admitted that there are number of cases filed against him and he used to take the money from several persons. Taking note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 that in paragraph No.19, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no any rebuttal evidence even though he was examined as D.W.1. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition in view of the categorical admission on the part of D.W.1. Therefore, no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34288 CRL.RP No. 995 of 2026 ground is made out to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23