- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 659 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI H MARIYAPPA S/O HOMBE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 31/14-1, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 7TH ‘A’CROSS, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHATH A.P,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT M C LALITHAMBIKE W/O PUTTAREVANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT. KAILANCHA VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT,KARNATAKA- 562 159. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M J SUMUKH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMNAGARA, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.23/2019 AND ALSO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 28.08.2019 IN C.C NO.350/2009 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT RAMNAGAR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the petitioner counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This matter is listed for final hearing. 3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court is that the accused and the complainant are well acquainted with each other, since last many years. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant during 2nd week of June 2008 as hand loan for the purpose of family necessities agreeing to repay the same within six months. After lapse of six months, on demands from the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 complainant, the accused issued Cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 29.12.2008. On presentation of the said Cheque, the same is returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused but he refused the said notice. Hence, the complaint is filed against the accused. The cognizance was taken, the accused was secured. He pleaded not guilty and claims the trial. 4. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P8 and confronted documents as Ex.D1 and D2. Thereafter, the accused was subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.D3 to D5. The trial Court after considering all these factual aspects, convicted and sentence the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 for short). Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.23/2019 wherein the appellate Court also reassessed the material on record and confirms the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the cheque was given in favour of one Rangaswamy in respect of the chit transaction and there was no acquaintance with each other by the complainant and also the accused. The cheque which was given to the Rangaswamy was misused by the complainant and there is no any legal liability. The trial Court and the appellate Court committed an error in not appreciating the very defence and committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence and also failed to consider the document at Ex.D1 and D2. The address which was mentioned in the legal notice and there - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 is no any service of legal notice. As such, this Court has to exercise its revisional powers and set aside the order of the trial Court and appellate Court. 6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a false defence was taken that the accused was not known to the complainant and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record and though it is suggested to P.W.1 in the cross examination that he was not having an acquaintance of the complainant and accused, but in the cross examination of D.W.1, though denied the acquaintance with each other, but in the cross examination of P.W.1, suggestion was made contrary to the suggestion made by the counsel appearing for the accused and deposition of the accused. While cross examining P.W.1, it is suggested that through one Rangaswamy and husband of the complainant, the complainant was introduced to the accused. Hence, the very contention that both of them are not having - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 acquaintance was not accepted by the appellate Court and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.24. Further, the counsel also submits that once the cheque is issued and defence was taken that the cheque was given to the Rangaswamy, the said cheque was misused by the said Rangaswamy and he was not summoned before the trial Court to substantiate the same. The very contention of the accused that he had issued the cheque in favour of the Rangaswamy was not proved and even the accused has not chosen to examine him as a defence witness when such defence was taken and hence both the Courts have not committed any error and it does not requires any interference and scope of revision is very limited. 7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 a. Whether both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record? b. Whether this Court can exercise the revisional powers that order of the trial Court and also the appellate Court confirming the Order of the trial Court, suffers from its legality and correctness? c. What order? 8. Having considered the submissions of counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, the case of complainant that both the accused and complainant are well acquainted with each other for many years and accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant during second week of June 2008 as hand loan for the purpose of family necessities, agreeing to repay the same within 6 months. After lapse of 6 months, when the demand was made, the accused had issued the subject matter of the cheque, and the cheque was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The notice was given and the same was returned with an endorsement that not claimed and hence complaint was filed, cognizance was taken, accused was - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 secured and he did not plead guilty and claims the trial. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the document Exs.P1 to P8 and confronted documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. by P.W.1 during the course of cross- examination. Ex.D1 is a pan card of accused and Ex.D2 is a notarized copy of ration card of accused. In the 313 statement, except denying nothing is stated and the accused also examined as D.W.1 and 3 documents are marked as Exs.D3 to D5 i.e. complaint and evidence in the copy of PCR No.119/2010, order sheet and Ex.D5 pension book. 9. Further, the trial Court having taken note of the defence which was taken that complainant is a stranger to the accused and not having any acquaintance, the said fact was taken note of in paragraph No.22 of the judgment and with regard to the fact that he was a stranger, he was not known and the address of accused as wrong address was given. But the trial Court in paragraph No.24 taken - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 note of that though the accused suggested in the cross examination of P.W.1 that through one Rangaswamy and husband of the complainant, the complainant was introduced to the accused. But in the cross examination of D.W.1 specifically says that no acquaintance of complainant and accused. As such, come to conclusion that it is highly contrary between suggestions made by counsel of the accused and deposition of accused. As such the defence of the accused that there is no acquaintance between complainant and accused is not sustainable when the suggestion was made that accused was introduced through one Rangaswamy. 10. It is also important to note that when the defence was taken that cheque was given to the Rangaswamy, that too in connection with chit transaction. Even in respect of the chit transaction, nothing is placed on record and even not examined the said Rangaswamy and he would have summoned him and proved the fact - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 that cheque was given to the Rangaswamy not in favour of the complainant and none of the chit subscribers are examined. It is also important to note that the accused did not dispute his signature and also the issuance of cheque. It is also to be noted that complaint was filed subsequently in the year 2010 after the issuance of the legal notice and also filing of the case against the revision petitioner in the year 2009. When such material available on record that the accused took contention that he was not having any acquaintance with the complainant ought to have substantiated the same. But instead of contrary suggestions are made while cross examining P.W.1 and also during the evidence, he reiterates that he was not having any acquaintance with the complainant and the same is taken note of in paragraph Nos.22, 24 and 27. When the burden lies on the accused, he ought to have rebutted the evidence of complainant and the same is not done. Under the circumstances, I do not find any error on the part of the trial Court and also the appellate Court and - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010282122026 NC: 2026:KHC:37106 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2026 the appellate Court also while reversing or confirming the judgment of the trial Court had discussed in detail in paragraph Nos. 20, 21 and 22. The other contention of the accused that no notice was served. But it is very clear that intimation was delivered and not claimed as endorsement and also this notice was sent even through the certificate of posting. Further, the address mentioned in the notice as well as in this case i.e. 31/14 but sub number is not mentioned and cross is also a different and that cannot be a ground to entertain the revision petition and the address except sub number not denied. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the judgment of the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court and the same not suffers from its legality and correctness. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57