- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35503 CRL.RP No. 377 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 377 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KRISHNA K S SON OF LATE SIDDAYALLAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT WARD NO. 22, FOREST OFFICER BUILDING, BANK COLONY, RAILWAY STATION ROAD,KUNIGAL TOWN - 572 130, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B G,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RANGASWAMY SON OF NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO. 22, OPP VEERABHADRA KALYANA MANTAPA, K R S AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TOWN - 572 130, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. LIKITHA M, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35503 CRL.RP No. 377 of 2024 IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.51/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AGAINST THIS PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though this matter is listed for admission, in the previous occasion also, the counsel never appeared and also on 12.01.2026 when the matter was called twice, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Today also, the counsel is absent and other side has moved the matter. 2. The factual matrix of case of complainant before the trial Court are that both accused and complainant are well known to each other and they are best friends. The accused availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant in the year 2018 and the accused did not repay the same, but issued the cheque. When the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35503 CRL.RP No. 377 of 2024 cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the legal notice was issued to the accused to pay the amount and the same is served upon the accused. Inspite of issue of notice, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor issued any reply. Hence, the complaint came to be filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short). The cognizance was taken and the accused was secured. He pleaded not guilty and claims the trial. 3. In order to prove the case, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P5. Though accused has not paid the amount, contested the matter by engaging the counsel taken defense in respect of issuance of cheque and did not deny the signature on the cheque Further, the accused disputed the service of notice and the same was taken note of by the trial Court in paragraph No.11 of its judgment in detail - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35503 CRL.RP No. 377 of 2024 and also defence was taken that cheque was given to one Jagadeesh and the same was misused and the same is also not substantiated and the same is discussed in paragraph No.12 and comes to the conclusion that the defence was not substantiated and the appellate Court also reassessed the both oral and documentary evidence on record and taken note of legal notice and also the acknowledgment for having served the notice and no reply was given and the defence which have raised before the trial court was also not substantiated and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 4. Having considered the grounds urged in the revision petition and also the factual matrix of the case, it is very specific case of the complainant that both are friends and the accused has availed loan from the complainant and issued the Cheque. The defence which was taken note of in paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the trial Court and also with regard to misuse of Cheque and the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the same - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35503 CRL.RP No. 377 of 2024 is not substantiated and taken note of in paragraph No.12 onwards and when such material is considered and defence which was taken was not substantiated, I do not find any ground to admit this revision and hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29