- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025 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. 630 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVASAGAR S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.338,GANAPATHY AASHRAMA POST,BANDIPALYA VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK,MYSURU-570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O PUTTABUDDI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.178, 15TH CROSS,4TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU CITY,MYSURU-570 025. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANUSHA ASUNDI,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2024 PASSED IN C.C NO.206/2021, BY THE LEARNED JUDGE COURT OF V JMFC AT MYSURU AND CONFIRMED IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025 CRL.APPL.NO.283/2024 DATED 21.02.2025 BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU. 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 and also the counsel appearing to the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of complainant is that both complainant and accused were having acquaintance with each other, in the month of February, 2019, the accused approached and borrowed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for his legal necessities and also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1% per month and going to repay the entire amount within 2 to 3 months. But the same was not repaid and hence demanded that the loan amount should be repaid. For this, the accused issued a cheque at 28.12.2020 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The same was presented and returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025 complaint was filed. The cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the trial court. He did not plead guilty and claims the trial. 3. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked document Exs. P1 to P11. But P.W.1 was fully cross examined and during the course of cross examination, nothing was elicited and only 8 documents are confronted by the accused and the same is marked as Exs.D1 to D8. Thereafter, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The trial Court having considered the oral and document evidence particularly, the defence taken with regard to financial assistance, he approached the complainant and promised that he would get the loan from his mother-in- law by name Doreswamy @ Basappa, who is none other than complainant’s sister’s husband. No such amount was paid but cheques were collected and the same was not returned. The only defence is that he has not taken any loan. But no reply was given. The trial Court had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025 considered both evidence in paragraph Nos.23, 24 and 25. When the capacity of the complainant was questioned, the same is taken note of that the sale is made in the year 2016 for an amount of Rs.14,75,000/- and he has also received a share amount by selling the property and when the accused did not choose to lead defence evidence and considering the cross examination of P.W.1, comes to the conclusion that there was no any rebuttal evidence and thereby convicted and sentence the accused. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.283/2024. The first appellate Court also having considered the material on record and particularly, the issuance of Cheque and issuance of notice and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination. The appellate Court reassessed both oral and documentary evidence and comes to the conclusion that, the trial Court has not committed an error and confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025 4. The main contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that both the Courts fails to take note of the defence of the accused. The specific case of the accused is that both the Courts come to erroneous conclusion that the cheque is issued towards the legally enforceable debt and hence, requires interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that both the Courts have failed to taken note of the fact that during the course of cross examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and the trial Court and the appellate Court having considered the material on record has rightly convicted and sentence and no interference is required. 6. Having heard the counsel appearing for revision petitioner and the respondent and also taking note of the factual aspect of the case that it is the case of complainant that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was borrowed in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025 month of February 2019 and on insistence, cheque was issued on 28.02.2020 and when the cheque was presented and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the notice was also issued against the accused. The defence evidence which was led by the accused is also considered by the trial court in paragraph No.14 of its judgment that when accused approached the complainant. The complainant assured that she will get the loan from her brother-in-law by name Doreswamy @ Basappa. But no such amount was paid to the accused and did not led any defence evidence with regard to this defence is concerned to substantiate his case. Further, the evidence of complainant was not rebutted by the accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. When such being the case, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise, unless orders passed by the Courts below suffers from its legality and correctness, Hence, I do not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35504 CRL.RP No. 630 of 2025 find any grounds to admit the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33