- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35064 CRL.RP No. 846 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 846 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI G P MANJUNATH S/O G. PANDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, (SITE NO. 96/18), 3RD MAIN, SRIKANTESHWARANGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S KUMAR,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT PADMAVATHI A W/O LATE, K.M. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5/5, 3RD MAIN ROAD, SRIKANTESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 096. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.26886/2017 DTD. 31.01.2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ACMM, AT BANGALORE AND DIRECTS THE ACQUITTAL OF THE APPELLANT. 2. SET ASIDE THE ORDER CONFORMS BY THE LXV ADDL. CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.268/2023 JUDGMENT DTD 21.04.2026. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35064 CRL.RP No. 846 of 2026 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. 2. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner. 3. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the trial Court are that the family members of the accused are well known to the complainant for the last twenty five years. The accused approached the complainant along with his mother Smt. Lakshmi and his sister Smt. Jayanthi during the month of August 2016 and had sought for Rs.7,50,000/- for discharging the loan borrowed by his father i.e. G. Pandu, son of late Govindaswamy and also to discharge family debts incurred towards medical expenses of his father so also to discharge loan borrowed from Rajaji Nagar Co-operative Bank, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The father of the accused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35064 CRL.RP No. 846 of 2026 died in the month of July 2015 due to his illness. The complainant advanced a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- on 29.08.2016 out of which, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was taken by the accused, while remaining a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was taken by the sister of the accused, Smt. Jayanthi, assuring to repay within a period of six months. The accused, his mother and his sister had jointly executed a loan agreement on the same day. The complainant during the month of February,2017 approached the accused asking to return the money for which the accused issued a Cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 05.06.2017 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Immediately, the demand notice was issued to the accused and the said notice was served upon the accused. But despite service of demand notice, the accused did not comply with the demand and also no reply was given. As such, the complaint was filed against the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35064 CRL.RP No. 846 of 2026 accused and the cognizance was taken and accused was secured. He pleaded not guilty and claims the trial. 4. In order to prove her case, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. She also examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. On the other hand, the accused was subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.c. and also in order to prove his case, examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.D1 to D5. Exs.D1 to D3 were marked during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 on confrontation as she admitted them and Exs.D4 and D5 were marked through D.W.1. The trial Court having considered both oral and document evidence of the complainant as well as the accused, taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 as well as taken note of agreement at Ex.P4 of loan transaction and also the Cheque at Ex.P1. Further, taking note of service of notice in terms of Ex.P7, no reply was given and when the dispute was made with regard to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35064 CRL.RP No. 846 of 2026 service of notice is concerned, voters list of 2017 marked as Ex.P8 and income tax returns at Exs.P11 and 12 are marked and also considering the evidence of D.W.1, particularly the document of Ex.D4 lease agreement. Since the accused has disputed the very service of notice, the same is discussed in paragraph Nos.25, 26 and 27 of its judgment and comes to the conclusion that no favorable answers were elicited from the mouth of PWs.1 to 3 with regard to the defence which was taken. Ex.P5 indicates that loan was advanced on 28.10.2010 and loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) was repaid with interest accrued thereon. However, in Ex.P4- agreement of loan, it is clearly stated that for discharge of loan of Rs.3,00,0000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) borrowed by the father of the accused during his lifetime in Rajajinagar Co- operative Bank is also one of the purpose for taking loan of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakh fifty thousand only) from the complainant and taken note of Ex.D4-lease agreement and nothing is elicited from the mouth of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35064 CRL.RP No. 846 of 2026 witnesses with regard to Ex.P4 is concerned. Hence, accepted the case of complainant and not accepted the defence of the accused thereby convicted and sentence the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’). 5. The appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly considering the document of Ex.P4 as well as the answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination. The same was discussed in paragraph No.22 and that D.W.1 has not explained as to what was such pressure on him to put signatures as per Exs.P4(a) and (b) and though it is contended that document at Ex.P4 was created document but admitted the signature as per Exs.P4(a) and (b) in the alleged document. The said fact is taken note of and also in respect of the signature available on the document at Ex.P1, it is the case of the complainant that the accused - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35064 CRL.RP No. 846 of 2026 along with family members have approached and availed loan and executed document as per Ex.P4 and on insistence, for repayment of the loan amount the subject matter of Cheque is issued. The appellate Court also reassessed the evidence available on record and taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.28 and 29 thereby accepted the reasoning given by trial Court with regard to the issuance of the cheque and confirmed the same. 6. Now the counsel appearing for revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed error in not considering the documents at Ex.P4 and Ex.D5 which was relied upon. The counsel also would submit that question of issuance of the cheque for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) does not arise and already amount which was repaid, to that effect also, no document is placed before the trial Court except relying upon the document at Ex.D5 and Ex.P4, it is very clear that although at the time of obtaining the loan amount, entered into an agreement as per Ex.P4 and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35064 CRL.RP No. 846 of 2026 subject matter of cheque was issued and trial Court also considered the same in detail in paragraph Nos.25, 26 and 27. Further, with regard to the demand notice, the same is also considered while answering point No.3 in paragraph No.27. Both trial Court as well as the appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record come to conclusion that cheque was not disputed and Ex.P4 though disputed, the same is not substantiated by producing any evidence before the Court. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel that both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective cannot be accepted. As such, no ground is made out to entertain the revision and the revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38