- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343812026 NC: 2026:KHC:37104 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2026 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.811 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. A.N. SRINIVAS S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.81, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN B SECTOR, NEW TOWN YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R. SRINIVAS S/O CHIKKA RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT PRANEETHA NILAYA G.H.N. LAYOUT PRASHANTHNAGAR CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S.A., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 25.11.2025 IN C.C.NO.851/2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKABALLAPURA, CONVICTING THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343812026 NC: 2026:KHC:37104 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2026 PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.76/2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA DATED 04.04.2026 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CASE. 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. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused has approached the complainant for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- for the purpose of family benefits and urgent financial transactions on 14.02.2020. The complainant has paid the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and the accused agreed to repay the entire loan amount within 4 months. In consideration thereof, the accused has issued a Cheque for the aforementioned amount dated 14.06.2020 in favour of the complainant. When the Cheque was presented, the same - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343812026 NC: 2026:KHC:37104 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2026 returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Immediately, legal notice was issued and the same was served. But, no reply was given and even did not comply with the demand. Hence, invoked Section 138 of N.I. Act by filing complaint. The Trial Court taken cognizance and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims trial. 3. The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On closure of the evidence of complainant, accused was subjected to 313 statement and in 313 statement also, total denial and not led any defence evidence. 4. Having considered the reasoning of the Trial Court, defence was taken by the accused that he was on lease in the premises which belongs to Rajanna and paid the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- towards lease amount and at that time, Cheque was given to Rajanna and the said Cheque was given for security for the lease amount and the same was not returned and it was misused. In order to substantiate the said contention, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, except making the suggestion and also the said Rajanna was not - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343812026 NC: 2026:KHC:37104 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2026 examined before the Court and even, the accused also not entered the witness box to substantiate the defence. The Trial Court also taken note that no reply was given to the legal notice and afterthought only, the said defence was taken with regard to the transaction between the accused and Rajanna and misusing of the Cheque. When the accused towards lease only paid the amount is not substantiated, the question of issuing Cheque for security does not arise. Hence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. The order of the Trial Court is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.76/2025. The First Appellate Court also having taken note of the evidence available and both oral and documentary evidence, in detail discussed in paragraph No.21 that in the absence of any such explanation from the accused, this Court has no other option except to believe the case of complainant that accused has issued the impugned Cheque towards repayment of the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and the very defence was not substantiated and there is no rebuttal evidence and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343812026 NC: 2026:KHC:37104 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2026 6. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend before this Court that both the Courts have committed an error and particularly, he brought to notice of this Court Section 269(seizure) of the Income Tax Act that more than Rs.20,000 shall be paid by way of Cheque or Demand Draft and counsel would contend that he is a small agriculturalist having 2 to 3 acres of land and not having any capacity to lend the money. The counsel also vehemently contend that when a specific defence was taken before both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, both the Courts committed an error in accepting the case of complainant. Hence, it requires interference. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that when specific defence was taken that Cheque was given in favour of Rajanna and the same is not substantiated. The Trial Court also taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 when suggestion was made to P.W.1 in paragraph No.17 and so also, the very defence which was taken was as a security for the lease amount of Rs.18,00,000/-, Cheque was given in favour of - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343812026 NC: 2026:KHC:37104 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2026 said Rajanna. The same is also not substantiated and also, he has failed to produce the lease agreement before the Court and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and it does not any interference. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and taking note of the factual aspects of the case, it is the specific case of the complainant that he has lent an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and in turn, the accused had issued the Cheque and when the same was presented, it was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and no dispute with regard to said fact is concerned. However, the only defence is that Cheque was given towards the security in favour of Rajanna and admittedly, the said Rajanna was not examined before the Court. Apart from that, even lease agreement is also not produced before the Court and even, he did not choose to enter into the witness box and during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited with regard to this defence is concerned. Notice was also issued immediately and the same was served, but no reply was given and only during - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343812026 NC: 2026:KHC:37104 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2026 the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, defence that Cheque was given as security towards lease amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was taken and the amount of lease is paid by the accused, the question of giving Cheque as a security does not arise. 9. Having taken note of the material available on record, when the defence is not substantiated and also when there is no rebuttal evidence as against the evidence of the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise and only if there is miscarriage of justice and if the evidence is not considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, then only, the Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and the said situation is not warranted in the case on hand. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40