- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190112026 NC: 2026:KHC:37105 CRL.RP No. 448 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.448 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI FRANCIS R.C., PROPRIETOR OF ST. FRANCIS INDIA SERVICE S/O JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.7, NEXT TO JANATHA FAB ALUMINUM FABRICATORS KODATHI VILLAGE NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE CARMELARAM POST SARJAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-560035. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTH T.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOHN C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI C.N.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE D.V.NARAYANA REDDY R/AT NO.7/3/A, 3/1 CHIKKABELANDUR VILLAGE CAREMELARAM POST BENGALURU -560 035. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190112026 NC: 2026:KHC:37105 CRL.RP No. 448 of 2026 AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1283/2025 DATED 17.01.2025 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED BY THE XVIII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.12910/2020 DATED 27.04.2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT, 1881 AS ANNEXURE-B. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. This matter is listed for dismissal, since learned counsel for the petitioner never appeared on the previous date of hearing. However, counsel would submit that due to lapses on the part of counsel, the accused could not cross-examine the witness P.W.1 and also not led evidence. The counsel also would submit that after enquiry, came to know about the fact that case was disposed of 2 years ago and then, filed criminal appeal and due to delay in filing the criminal appeal, the same was dismissed not on merits. 2. Having perused the material on record, the very case of the complainant is that on several occasions, the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190112026 NC: 2026:KHC:37105 CRL.RP No. 448 of 2026 accused had borrowed the amount for the purpose of construction and business needs by executing on-demand promissory note and also promised to repay the same within 1 year. But, he has not kept up his promise and after several requests and demand made by the complainant to repay the said loan amount, the accused had issued subject matter of Cheques dated 28.02.2020 and 05.06.2020 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- each drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd. On presentation of the said Cheques, the same returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and notice was issued and inspite of service of notice, accused failed to pay the Cheque amount. Hence, filed the complaint invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. The Trial Court taken cognizance, secured the accused and he did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P.W.9. Though, the accused appeared through counsel, not cross-examined P.W.1 and also not disputed the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged and even not led any defence evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190112026 NC: 2026:KHC:37105 CRL.RP No. 448 of 2026 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the same is due to negligence on the part of the counsel and complaint is given to the Bar Council and the same is still pending for consideration. 5. Having taken note of the fact that amount was borrowed for the purpose of business needs and construction on several occasions and issued two Cheques on demand and also executed promissory note and the Cheques are bounced and when the notice was issued and the same was served, he did not give any reply and even not disputed the Cheques by causing any reply notice. When such being the case, the very contention of learned counsel that due to negligence on the part of the counsel, could not cross-examine the witness P.W.1 cannot be accepted, as it was the duty of petitioner to be diligent. The case was filed in 2020 and the same was disposed of on 27.04.2023 almost after 3 years of the case and even did not enquire with the counsel for a period of 2 years and with delay of more than 2 years, appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and nothing is there to - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190112026 NC: 2026:KHC:37105 CRL.RP No. 448 of 2026 consider in this revision petition, as the evidence of P.W.1 was not challenged and not led any defence evidence and also not replied to the notice. Hence, no interference is warranted to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37