- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010231582023 NC: 2026:KHC:37031 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 574 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R. MAHESH, SON OF RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANKESHWARA KRUPA, MATHRUCHAYA NILAYA, DOOR NO.1980, K. BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURUR-570023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.D. SRINIVASA, SON OF M.B. DEVA URS, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.107, 2ND STAGE, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU-570023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118/2022 DATED 02.03.2023 OF THE LEARNED IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010231582023 NC: 2026:KHC:37031 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2023 AT MYSURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.03.2022 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU, IN C.C.NO.1553/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, SET ASIDE BY THE ORDERS OF THE COURTS BELOW, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL 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 This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that, he and the accused were known to each other and the accused is working as a conductor in KSRTC. During the year 2013, the accused had performed the marriage of his daughter and during August 2013, he approached the complainant for financial help of Rs.2,00,000/- to discharge his debts. As such the complainant lent Rs.2,00,000/- during the fourth week of August 2014. After borrowing the amount, the accused did not - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010231582023 NC: 2026:KHC:37031 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2023 repay the said amount and when the complainant insisted for repayment, the accused issued a cheque in his favour for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, legal notice was issued to the accused by RPAD calling upon him to pay the cheque amount and same was served on the accused on 09.02.2015. The accused failed to repay the cheque amount and hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 4. The accused got examined himself as D.W.1, but not produced any documents. During the course of cross- examination of D.W.1, defence was taken that he gave the cheque in favour of Jayalakshmi and she was running the chit and the said cheque was misused. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, which is extracted by the Trial Court in paragraph No.16, he admits the cheque. He says that he gave the cheque in favour of Jayalakshmi in connection with chit transaction. But he has not given any complaint against Jayalakshmi for - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010231582023 NC: 2026:KHC:37031 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2023 misusing of the same. The accused did not explain how the cheque had gone to the hands of the complainant and defence which was taken, remains as defence and not elicited any answers from the mouth of P.W.1 and also there is no rebuttal evidence. Hence, the Trial Court accepted the case of complainant and convicted and sentenced the accused. 4. The said order is challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. When a suggestion was made to D.W.1 in the cross-examination, he categorically admits that against him there are four cases and also a suggestion was made that he is having the habit of getting the loan amount and not making payment and the said suggestion was denied. The accused being the conductor of KSRTC, had indulged in getting the loan amount and not repaying the same. The Appellate Court also taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1. D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination admitted the cheque and defence which was taken was not proved by placing any preponderance of probabilities and hence, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010231582023 NC: 2026:KHC:37031 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2023 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider the defence, which was taken and committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. It is contended that there was no legally enforceable debt to attract Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that issuance of cheque is admitted and defence which was taken was not probabilised by leading any evidence, except examining himself as D.W.1. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also taking into note of defence of the accused, his case is that he gave the cheque in favour of Jayalakshmi and Jayalakshmi was running the chit and the cheque was misused. But no complaint is lodged against Jayalakshmi and even not examined the said Jayalakshmi before the Trial Court to substantiate his defence and also even admitted that there were four cases against him. Having taken note of the reasoning of the Trial Court, the Trial Court in detail taken note - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010231582023 NC: 2026:KHC:37031 CRL.RP No. 574 of 2023 of admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination. The Appellate Court even extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 while confirming the order of the Trial Court in paragraph No.16 and 22. When such a reasoned order has been passed and also when the order does not suffer from its legality and correctness, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise and the scope of revision is very limited. Only in case of miscarriage of justice and if the material evidence available on record is not considered, then only the Court can invoke the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21