- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010383412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.938 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR. NITHYANANDA SHETTY, S/O LATE ANNAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 1-164, NEAR SRIDEVI GUDI, PALMAR POST, UDUPI TALUK-574112. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHAMMAD IRFAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PRASAD ACHARYA, S/O ACHUTHA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS , R/AT NO.22, 1-54/25, FLAT NO.F5, SKANDA, MANGALASHRUTHI APARTMENT, MULIHITHLU ROAD, MANGALADEVI, MANGALURU-575001. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. ACHUTHA ACHARYA, S/O LATE N. LINGAPPA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 1-54/25, FLAT NO.F5, SKANDA, MANGALASHRUTHI APARTMENT, MULIHITHLU ROAD, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010383412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026 MANGALADEVI, MANGALURU-575001. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K., IN CRL.A.NO.3/2024, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC V COURT, MANGALURU IN C.C.NO.1406/2021 WHCIH IS AT ANNEXURE A AND B, AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND AWARD COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for suspension of sentence and I.A.No.2/2026 for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the petition. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also on perusal of the material available on record, the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that, the accused had entered into an agreement of sale dated 15.06.2017 with the complainant and agreed to sell the property situated at Sy.No.85/2014 measuring 4 cents of - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010383412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026 Derebail Village of Mangaluru. Under the agreement of sale dated 15.06.2017, the accused had received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards part sale consideration by way of cheque bearing No.740507 drawn on Canara Bank. Subsequently, the accused failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and thereby agreed to return the earnest money and accordingly, the accused had issued two cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- each to the complainant and collected the original agreement of sale dated 15.06.2017 from the complainant. The complainant had presented one such cheque issued by the accused for Rs.5,00,000/- and has encased the same. The complainant thereafter presented the other cheque and the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, legal notice was issued and the same was served and the accused did not comply with the demand and also not given any reply and hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010383412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026 3. The complainant in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7(a). The accused though appeared through counsel and cross-examined P.W.1, but not led any defence evidence. The suggestion made to P.W.1 is that the accused had availed only an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and repaid the same, but the accused denied the very transaction of sale agreement. It is the very specific case of the complainant that at the time of issuance of these two cheques, the accused had collected the original sale agreement. When the same was disputed, the complainant produced the document of Ex.P.7 for having made the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court and no defence evidence. Apart from that, when two cheques were issued, one cheque was encashed for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. In respect of the present subject matter of the cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. When such being the case, the Trial Court considering the material on reocrd, convicted and sentenced the accused. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010383412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026 4. The Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.3/2024, re-assessed the evidence and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence available on record. The specific evidence of P.W.1 was extracted in paragraph No.20 and so also taken note of the suggestion made to P.W.1, which clearly indicates that the accused took up a stand that the accused had given the cheque in question as a security and not for legally enforceable debt. The same is discussed in paragraph No.21 and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that, while filing the complaint there was an inordinate delay. However, he admits that the delay was condoned in view of the Covid-19. The condonation of delay was not challenged and only on merits, filed the revision petition before this Court. The very contention of the revision petitioner is that he had availed only an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was repaid. It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused had entered into an agreement of sale and received an amount of - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010383412026 NC: 2026:KHC:37299 CRL.RP No. 938 of 2026 Rs.10,00,000/- and sale did not come through and hence, the accused repaid the amount by way of two cheques and one cheque was honoured and another cheque was not honoured. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was received under the sale agreement and at the time of issuance of these two cheques, the accused had collected the original sale agreement. Both the Courts taken note of the same and the judgment not suffers from its legality and correctness. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 are also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16