- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35811 CRL.RP No. 726 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.726 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. HEMANTH PRAJAPATHI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O DHANRAJ PRAJPATHI R/AT NO.23 & 24, 2ND CROSS VALLABHANAGARA KONANKUNTE CROSS BENGALURU-560 062 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK S HALIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MANJUNATHA PRASAD S S/O LATE K. S. SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT 601, HRISHIKESH NIVAS 27TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 076 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DTD 19.07.2023 PASSED IN C.C.NO.71/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ACMM, AT BENGALURU AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35811 CRL.RP No. 726 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.71/2021 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 22.01.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.1136/2023 by the Appellate Court . 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that complainant and accused are the business friends. Accused is running a hardware and sanitary shop under the name and style of M/s Pavitra Pipe Fittings at No.21/2B, Vasanthapura Main Road, Konanakunte Cross, Bangalore. The accused has requested the complainant for hand loan for the purpose of investment in his business and the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.29,00,000/- to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35811 CRL.RP No. 726 of 2026 accused on different dates from February 2019 to December 2019. The accused has agreed to repay the loan within a short period. But failed to repay the said amount. On demand, he has issued a subject matter of cheque for Rs.29,00,000/-. On presentation of the said cheque, it was returned with an endorsement ‘account block situation covered in 2125’. Hence, the legal notice was issued and the same served on the accused. Inspite of it, accused has failed to repay the amount. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did plead guilty. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13. Accused also led his defence evidence. The defence which was taken before the Trial Court is that cheque was stolen and the Trial Court held that no step is taken in this regard. Accused has categorically admits that he has installed CCTV camera in his shop and the Trial Court held that the same has not been produced before the court to show that the same will record about the business being conducted in the shop. Apart from that accused has admitted the cheque as well as the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35811 CRL.RP No. 726 of 2026 signature. But given different versions in the evidence that is narrated in paragraph 51 of the judgment and Trial Court held that accused changes his version each and every stages and the same is also observed in paragraph 52. Also taken note of both oral and documentary evidence of the complainant as well as the accused. The Trial Court taken note that accused has blocked the account. In paragraph 55, Trial Court taken note of the evidence of DW1 that there was no money transaction between the complainant and the accused at any point of time and held that the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the same is not substantiated placing cogent material and also held that the very defence of cheque was stolen in the shop of the accused was also not established by the accused. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence particularly, taking note of defence that cheque was stolen, it is held that no action was taken in this regard against the complainant. On reassessing the material on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35811 CRL.RP No. 726 of 2026 record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court not committed any error while convicting the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this court is that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence which was taken and erroneously comes to the conclusion that accused has not rebutted the case of the complainant even though he has led his defence evidence. Hence, it requires interference. 8. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also considering the material on record as well as the reasons assigned by both the Courts, it discloses that accused has taken the defence that his cheque was stolen but the same is not substantiated and no document is placed before the court in this regard. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Ex.P12 and P13 was considered by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35811 CRL.RP No. 726 of 2026 the Trial Court i.e., certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.9241/2020 and C.C.No.9238/2020. The counsel would submit that in those two cases, the father of the accused and accused was acquitted respectively. The counsel submitted that in terms of Ex.P13, the acquittal order was passed in favour of the petitioner. But the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court in this case when the reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court and the same was appreciated by the Appellate Court. When the order of both the Courts does not suffer from its legality and correctness, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN