- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 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. 916 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR ABDUL KHADER SON OF ABBONNU SALE AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUZAIN COTTAGE, BADAGAULIPADY, KANDAVA MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 574 144. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THARUN THARANATH POOJARI,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR FELIX LOBO SON OF SALVADORE LOBO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOGARU VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA 574 144. …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 DTD 04.03.2026 PASSED BY Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 THE LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.373/2025 WHICH CONFIRMED THE JUDGEMENT DTD 11.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC IX COURT, MANGALURU IN CC.NO.16/2023.b) ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT, 1881. 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 revision petitioner. 2. This Court heard this matter in length and when a submission was made by the learned counsel for revision petitioner before the Court that no opportunity was given and directed to produce the order sheet and today accordingly he has produced the order sheet and having perused the order sheet, the trial Court had given opportunity to cross-examine the witness on several occasions, i.e., on 21.07.2023, 16.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and 20.09.2023 and the accused never cross-examined P.W.1. As such, ultimately on 05.10.2023 taken as ‘no cross of P.W.1’ and thereafter again an application is filed - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 on 11.10.2023. When the same was pending, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.10.2023 and he seeks for recalling of P.W.1 for cross-examination. Complaint sought time. However, the complainant on the next date of hearing i.e., on 27.10.2023 said that no objection to recall the P.W.1 and P.W.1 also recalled on cost of Rs.200/- and posted the matter on 04.11.2023. Even the complainant was present on 04.11.2023. On 05.11.2023 the accused was absent and NBW was issued and not cross-examined the witness and again the NBW was recalled on 13.12.2023. The matter was again posted for cross-examination of P.W.1 on 22.12.203, 06.01.2024 and 19.01.2024 and he was cross-examined in part. On 06.02.2024, the case was posted for further cross- examination of P.W.1. On 21.02.2024, 15.03.2024 and 27.03.2024, instead of cross-examining P.W.1, the accused has filed an application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. The same was rejected and again posted for cross- examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 was present subsequently. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 3. Even P.W.1 was not cross-examined on several occasions i.e., on 19.06.2024, 25.06.2024 and 03.07.2024. Once again an application was filed under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. Instead of cross-examining P.W.1, the accused has filed several applications, dragged the matter before the trial Court and the trial Court also considered the application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed. The GPA holder by name Mrs. Asha Cecilia Lobo, permitted to lead evidence on behalf of the complainant and even in spite of opportunities given to the accused, led evidence and when the application was filed under Section 254 and 91 of Cr.P.C., the same are also allowed and permitted to lead further complainant evidence and complainant was further examined and to mark additional documents of Exs.P7 to P9 and posted the case for cross-examination of P.W.2. P.W.2 was cross- examined, but P.W.1 was not cross-examined. On 20.12.2024, the trial Court permitted the accused to cross-examine the witness on cost of Rs.500/-. The case - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1 on 30.12.2024. When the witness was present, he was not cross- examined and taken as no cross of P.W.1. Hence, once again the case was posted for recording of 313 statement and 313 statement was recorded on 21.01.2025. Once again the application was filed for recalling of P.W.1 and P.W. was also recalled for cross-examination and P.W.1 was also on several occasions appeared before the Court and taken as nil. On 11.02.2025, once again one more application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.2. and the same was allowed on cost of Rs.1,000/- and P.W.2 was recalled for cross-examination as a last chance and ultimately on 24.02.2025, P.W.2 was fully cross-examined and posted the matter for defence evidence and also not led any defence evidence on 01.03.2025, 05.03.25 and 07.03.2025 taken as no defence evidence. When the case was posted for arguments, once again the application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. praying the accused to give an - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 opportunity to lead evidence and the same was ultimately rejected by the Order dated 18.03.2025 and the case was heard and the complainant argument and the matter was posted on several occasions for accused argument. When the application was filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking summons to witness and to produce the document by the accused, the trial Court passed the detailed order and rejected the same. Instead of several opportunities given to the accused for arguments, almost more than half a dozen times, the judgment was pronounced by conviction and sentencing the accused. 4. Having taken note of the entire order sheet placed before the Court, it is very clear that at the instance of accused only, the matter was adjourned from 2023 i.e. from 21.07.2023 till pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court, i.e. on11.07.2025. Hence, the very submission of the counsel that no opportunity was given before the trial Court cannot be accepted and at the instance of accused only, the matter was adjourned for - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 several times for cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and ultimately P.W.2 was cross examined but P.W.1 was not fully cross examined. The trial Court also taken note of the same and also even the contentions which have been taken by the revision petitioner was also considered in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 and the very contention that accused never visited the office of advocate Vijayagowda and he did not sign Ex.P9 and any document and also on 08.02.2022, the money was transferred from the bank Rs.5,00,000/- which was related to the business and the money was not given to the accused as a loan. P.W.2 has produced the documents and also taken note of that the same was created and that is his defence. Except denial of the complainant's case and putting suggestions to the complainant during cross-examination, nothing was placed on record by the accused to disprove the case of complainant and the same is considered in paragraph No.18. Another defence of the accused is that complainant fraudulently obtained the accused signature on blank - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 stamp paper and blank paper and on cheques. But the said cheques are in the custody of the complainant. Therefore, the accused has to prove the fact that his cheques were stolen by complainant in order to probabilize a defence, no admission was elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 and further, accused did not lodge any complaint before the police regarding alleged act of theft of signed cheques and also taken note of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devidner Singh Hudan and another reported in 2019 (10) SCC 287. When the accused did not explain when his cheques were stolen by the complainant and further there is no explanation given by the accused taht what action taken against the complainant after she came to know about the fact of misuse of stolen cheque and forged his signature and taking note of all this material on record particularly considering the document at Ex.P1 in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 and also when the notice was issued, the same was also not replied and accused has not taken any steps - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 to reply for the said notice, the said fact is also observed in paragraph No.20 and taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Rangappa versus Sri. Mohan reported in (2010)11 SCC 441. 5. Further, the trial Court in paragraph No.21, comes to the conclusion that accused has not placed any probable defence and any cogent material before the Court to rebut the presumption and convicted and sentence the accused. The appellate court also having considered the material on record and reassessing both oral and documentary evidence and also taking note of defence which was taken and considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, particularly in paragraph Nos.17 and 18, the reasoning given by the trial Court was also taken note of by the Appellate Court and re-appreciated the material on record, particularly the transaction that cheque was admitted and no reply was given and no probable defence was raised thereby confirming the said judgment. Now the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010376372026 NC: 2026:KHC:36253 CRL.RP No. 916 of 2026 vehemently contend that no probable proper opportunity was given to him and this Court already taken note of the same. The case was dragged at the instance of the accused from several years from 2023 to 2025 till disposal and no such preponderance of probabilities also made out by the accused and never entered into the witness box and also not given any reply. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of trial Court and also the appellate Court in exercising the revision jurisdiction does not arise when the order of the trial Court and appellate court not suffers from any illegality and correctness. Hence, revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. It is made clear that the cost is payable in the registry within a period of one week. If the cost is not paid, list this matter for non-payment of cost on 23.07.2026. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22