- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37184 CRL.RP No. 1090 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.1090 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR. S G YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LATE GULLAPPA OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/AT NO.3, 6TH CROSS II MAIN, P&T LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU-560016 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARINATH M S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. KUSHALAPPA P S AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O P.D. SUBBAIAH R/AT NO.2061, KUSHA NILAYA CHELUVAIAH ROAD RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU-560016 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DTD 12.05.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.326/2021 PASSED BY Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37184 CRL.RP No. 1090 of 2026 THE HONBLE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC. 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 revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.03.2021 passed in C.C.No.27018/2012 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment dated 12.05.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.326/2021 by the Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the complainant and the son of the accused by name Mahesh Yellappa are good friends and hence, themselves and their family members have become good friends. The accused and his son running a Granite business and to develop the said business, the accused and his son approached the complainant in the month of July 2011 and - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37184 CRL.RP No. 1090 of 2026 requested the complainant for a sum of Rs.16,32,000/- as hand loan. The complainant, being a good family friend, has paid a sum of Rs.16,32,000/- to the accused and the same has been acknowledged by the accused and promised to repay the same within 3 months. It is also contended that after lapse of 3 months, the request was made by the complainant to repay the said amount, but accused pleaded inability to pay the amount and postponed the issue for few days and finally, accused has issued the subject matter of cheque for an amount of Rs.16,32,000/- on 16.01.2012. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The legal notice was issued calling upon accused to repay the amount and the same was served, but accused did not come forward to pay the amount and also he has not given any reply notice. Hence, complaint was given and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claims the trial. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P17. The accused led the defence evidence but not - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37184 CRL.RP No. 1090 of 2026 produced any documents. The main defence which was taken during the course of cross examination that the son of the accused has lost his car, laptop and passbook and cheques. Also the specific contention was taken that the complainant and one Ravi have stolen the signed cheques and by misusing the same, case was filed. The said defence was denied during the course of cross examination of PW1. The accused also examined himself as DW1 and during the course of his cross- examination, he categorically admits that when the notice was served on him, he has not given any reply to the said notice and no legal proceedings were initiated against the complainant or said Ravi. After receiving the notice from the Court, accused and his son have approached the Banaswadi Police and informed them that the bag is stolen by Ravi as he filed the false case against his son and also the present complainant filed the complaint against him and also he confronted that the same are with him. But the police did not help the complainant and told that since the case is pending, they cannot help him. The Trial Court taken note of the fact that after the service of notice only, a complaint was given and an attempt is made to - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37184 CRL.RP No. 1090 of 2026 file a complaint and the same was not entertained. All these materials were taken note of by the Trial Court while considering the material on record and accepted the case of complainant and not accepted the defence of accused thus, convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the defence which was taken comes to the conclusion that accused was unsuccessful in rebutting the presumption and also with regard to the defence is concerned, there is no any rebuttal evidence and nothing is made out to the extent of considering the preponderance of probabilities of the case of the accused. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37184 CRL.RP No. 1090 of 2026 7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in accepting the defence of the revision petitioner wherein specific defence was taken that Cheque book, passbook and even car and also the laptop was stolen. Also specific contention was taken that the complainant and one Ravi have stolen the cheque and misused the same. The counsel would vehemently contend that in the cross- examination, the complainant himself admits that he is doing the job for salary and the salary is Rs.23,000/-. When he is having such a meager earnings, how he paid such huge amount of Rs.16,32,000/- and the same was not considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the specific defence was taken by the accused that he lost the cheque and the same was misused, the same would have been accepted. The counsel also vehemently contend that there is a perversity in the finding of Trial Court and Appellate Court. Hence, it requires interference. 8. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner, and also taking into note of the factual aspects of - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37184 CRL.RP No. 1090 of 2026 the case, it is a very specific case of the complainant that he knows the accused as well as his son and accused and his son are doing the granite business. To develop the said business, accused and his son approached the complainant in the month of July 2011 and requested the complainant for a sum of Rs.16,32,000/-. Accordingly, complainant made the payment of said amount. On demand, accused postponed the issuance of said amount and ultimately, he has issued the cheque on 16.01.2012. When the same was presented, it was dishonored. 9. Having taken note of the specific case of complainant, it discloses that when the notice was issued to the accused, he did not give any reply. During the course of cross- examination of PW1, a defence was taken that cheque was lost and the same was misused and the same was denied. The Trial Court also taken note that the complaint was given subsequent to the receipt of legal notice and police did not help the accused in registration of the case. The Court taken note of conduct of the accused in approaching the police after the service of notice. When specific defence was taken that cheque was stolen and the same was misused, the preponderance of probabilities - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37184 CRL.RP No. 1090 of 2026 has to be made out by the accused and no such circumstances is made out and there is no any rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of N.I.Act. When both the Courts considered material on record and comes to the conclusion that accused has not made out any case of preponderance of probabilities, question of interfering with the revisional petition exercising the revisional powers does not arise. This Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction only if the order suffers from its legality and correctness and when there is a miscarriage of justice. But I have not found any such circumstances in the case on hand. Hence, no reason is made out to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN