- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1083 OF 2026 BETWEEN: KRISHNA S/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.170, KG KOPPALU DEVARAJU MOHALLA MYSORE-570001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERESH MAHESH UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND: SWAMYGOWDA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS P HOSAHALLI VILLAGE BELAGOLA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 (SINCE DEAD BY LRS.) 1. KUMARI W/O NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PALAHALLI, BELAGOLA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571438 2. BHYRAPPA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 S/O LATE SWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. GAYATHRI W/O MADESHA AGE NOT KNOWN RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE BELAGOLA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571438 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.190/2018 BY THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C SRIRANGAPATNA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for condonation of delay of 51 days in filing this revision petition and I.A.No.2/2026 for suspension of sentence and bail. 2. This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2024 passed in C.C.No.190/2018 by - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 29.01.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.5017/2024 by the Appellate Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused borrowed loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from the complainant agreeing to repay the same within two months and also paid the Cheque towards his liability. When the said Cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, legal notice was issued and same was returned as ‘unclaimed’. Hence, complaint has been filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. The accused led the defence evidence and also examined one more witness as DW2. The Trial Court observed that in the cross-examination of DW1, though he says that - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 there was no transaction between the complainant and accused, the witness who has been examined before the trial Court on behalf of the accused, categorically admits that he knows the transaction between the complainant and accused and held that that takes away the very defence that the accused was not having any transaction with the complainant. It is also the defence set out that accused was having a chit transaction with Papegowda and he was the subscriber of the chit. But no document is produced by the accused and the same is admitted in the cross examination of DW1 that has been taken note of by the trial Court in paragraph 24. Also the admission on the part of DW2 that there was a transaction between the complainant and accused and same is also extracted in paragraph 25. DW2 says that he himself and the accused were the members of the chit run by the Papegowda and he cannot tell who are all other subscribers of the chit and even DW2 also categorically admits that he is not having any document to show that the said Papegowda was running the chit. All these admissions of DW1 and DW2 was taken note of. Even court has to take note the cross examination of DW1 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 wherein accused even gone to the extent of denying his cheque and also his signature. But he admits the signature on the vakalath given to his counsel. But when he denies the signature and also the cheque, in one breath he says that cheque was given to Papegowda who is the brother of the complainant in connection with chit transaction, in other breath, he says that cheque is not belongs to him so also the signature. But the said cheque was not sent to the handwriting expert. Only mere denial is not enough. The trial Court taken note of this fact into consideration. So also with regard to the capacity to lend the money, the complainant categorically says that he was working and he had saved the money when he was working and also he had produced the RTC extracts at Ex.P6 to P10. When such documents are placed before the court, burden is on the accused to rebut the same. but there is no any rebuttal evidence before the court. 6. Having taken note of the same, even Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly, considering the admissions on the part of DW1 and DW2 in paragraph 11, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 comes to the conclusion that PW1 has stated that he is working as office boy in Vikrant Tyres company and he was retired from said job 10 to 12 years ago. He has stated that he used to get salary of Rs.12,000/- per month from the said job and he has saved some amount of his salary. Further he has stated that Rs.2,25,000/- was given to the accused 12 to 13 years ago from the savings amount in Palahalli Bank. This evidence of PW1 shows that at the time of availing the loan the complainant was earning money as office boy and he is having agricultural source also and the same is considered by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court considered the discussion made during the course of cross examination of DW1 denying his own signature in Ex.P1 and vakalath in paragraph 12 and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 8. The very contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the complainant was not having the capacity to lend the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and so also counsel would - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 contend that there was no any transaction between the complainant and the accused. The accused was the member of the chit which was run by the complainant brother one Mr. Papegowda and in that connection, cheque was given and the said Papegowda passed away and the very cheque given by the accused was misused by the complainant. 9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, it discloses that only two grounds again reiterated that the complainant has no capacity to make the payment as well as there is no transaction between the complainant and the accused and only cheque was given in connection with the chit transaction. But the said chit transaction is not substantiated. DW1 and DW2 categorically admitted that there is no any document with regard to the chit transaction. DW2 admission is very clear that there was a transaction between the complainant and the accused and he is aware of the same. When such admissions are available on record, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. The scope of revision is very limited. Only in case of any miscarriage of justice and not considered the material on record and the order - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 suffers from its legality and correctness, then this Court can consider the same. The same is not warranted in the case on hand. 10. The counsel also brought to notice of this court that in the complaint it is stated that he has lent the money in the year 2018 and having lent the money, accused has issued the cheque. But in the cross examination, PW1 admits that amount was given 12 to 13 years back and hence, the case of the complainant cannot be believed. Having taken note that the transaction is of the year 2018 and cheque is also of the year 2018. The mere stray sentence of amount was advanced about 12 to 13 years back will not take away the case of the complainant. Hence, that ground also cannot be accepted in view of the admission on the part of DW1 and DW2 and the very specific contention is that brother of the complainant was running the chit and in that connection, Cheque was given, but no documents are placed with regard to the transaction of Chit between the complainant and accused and also between the complainant’s brother and accused and between the complainant brother and DW2 and DW1 and DW2 categorically - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458022026 NC: 2026:KHC:36654 CRL.RP No. 1083 of 2026 admitted that there is no such document but DW2 who is the witness of DW1 categorically admitted the transaction between the complainant and accused. Under the circumstances, the same cannot be accepted. 11. Thus, the counsel for the petitioner has not made out any ground either to suspend the sentence or to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 are dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN