- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010401502026 NC: 2026:KHC:36231 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.976 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AVYAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, PROPRIETOR OF MARK ENTERPRISES, NO.3-98, KAINTHAJE, BEERAMANGALA, SULLIA, KASABA, D.K-574239. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKAS M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. HANGYO ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY CONSTITUTED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 301, STERLING CHAMBERS, KALAKUNJ ROAD, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-565003. REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNT OFFICER MR. PARTHASARATHI, S/O C.G. KANCHAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OFFICE AT 301, STERLING CHAMBERS, KALAKUNJ ROAD, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-565003. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010401502026 NC: 2026:KHC:36231 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2026 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A NO.374 OF 2025 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED IN CC NO.1309/2023 BY THE COURT OF THE JMFC (V COURT), MANGALURU, D.K. AND FURTHER ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for suspension of sentence and bail. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that, the complainant is a private limited company governed under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, dealing with the business of production and sales of ice creams and milk products. It is the case of the complainant that as per the request of the accused, the complainant has supplied milk products on credit facility to the accused and the accused was in due for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. In discharge of the said liability, the accused - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010401502026 NC: 2026:KHC:36231 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2026 issued the subject matter of the cheque. When the subject matter of the cheque was presented, the same was not honoured and hence, legal notice was issued and the same was served, but the accused did not comply with the demand and also not given any reply and hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8. The accused was also subjected to 313 statement and examined himself as D.W.1, but not produced any documents. 3. The only defence taken by the accused before the Trial Court is that his liability is only to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and in his oral evidence also he says that there exist a credit basis business transaction between the complainant and the accused. He categorically admits that this credit facility is for a period 30 to 60 days. But his only contention is that there was a liability to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- and he made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- through Raghavendra Pai, CFO of the complainant company - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010401502026 NC: 2026:KHC:36231 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2026 and balance is only Rs.1,00,000/-. The said defence was not substantiated that he has paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. It is his contention that the cheque was misused, which was given for security. But the said Raghavendra Pai, the CFO of the complainant company was not examined. The Trial Court in paragraph No.17 taken note of that, if that being the case, the accused ought to have summoned the said Raghavendra Pai to prove his contention and hence, the Trial Court not accepted the defence of the accused. The Trial Court also taken note of Ex.P.6 ledger extract, which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was due from the accused. Having taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 and taking note of the ledger extract Ex.P.6 and notice was issued and the same was served and no reply was given, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused. 4. The conviction and sentence was also challenged before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.374/2025. The Appellate Court also taken note of the defence which was taken and also taken note of signature on Ex.P.1 and his admission with - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010401502026 NC: 2026:KHC:36231 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2026 regard to the transaction was bill to bill and also liability and also the period of per credit facility is 30 to 60 days. The Appellate Court also taken note of the defence of payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and no document is produced and also the person who has received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is also not examined and hence, accepted the reasoning of the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend in his arguments that the Trial Court has not taken note of the defence that he has made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- through Raghavendra Pai. The learned counsel would submit that liability is only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.3,00,000/-. 6. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the reasoning of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court with regard to payment is concerned, the person to whom the accused made the payment was not examined before the Trial Court and he would have substantiated the same by rebutting the evidence of the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010401502026 NC: 2026:KHC:36231 CRL.RP No. 976 of 2026 complainant that the accused made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. The accused admits that there was a transaction and liability to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-. But his only contention is that he made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to Raghavendra Pai, CFO of the complainant company and the same is not substantiated. When such being the case, when there is no rebuttal evidence and no preponderance of probabilities, the question of accepting the defence of the revision petitioner does not arise. Both the Courts have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence of the complainant as well as the accused. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. 8. In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, pending I.As, if any, do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48