- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37185 CRL.RP No. 1099 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.1099 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. MAHESH S YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O S.G. YELLAPPA R/AT NO.3, 6TH CROSS II MAIN, P&T LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGARA BENGALURU-560016 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARINATH M S, ADVOCATE) AND: RAVI B AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O BACHANNA R/AT NO.108, OLD UCO BANK ROAD 6TH CROSS, 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 02.05.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.838/2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-68, BENGALURU AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37185 CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2026 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 07.10.2021 passed in C.C.No.26970/2012 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment dated 02.05.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.838/2021 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 accused are good friends. The accused and his father running a Granite business and to develop the said business, the accused and his father approached the complainant in the month of July 2011 and requested the complainant for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as hand loan. The complainant, being a good family friend, has paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the accused and the same has - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37185 CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2026 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.11,00,000/- on 10.01.2012. 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 P9. The accused also examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 and D2. The Trial Court taken note of the documents produced by the complainant. The defence was by accused is that cheque was stolen. The defence - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37185 CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2026 which was taken by the accused was taken note of particularly considering the case of complainant in paragraph 15 and so also the defence of the accused in paragraph 17 that the cheque was stolen and the same was misused. Though accused has taken a contention that complainant has misused the stolen signed Cheque and filed a false case against him. But in order to substantiate his contention, he has not examined any other witnesses. Moreover, though the notice has been duly served on him, he has not replied that the cheque was stolen and it was misused by the complainant and even he has not instructed bank authorities for the stop payment or has not informed about lost or theft of the Cheque book belongs to him. The same is taken note of in paragraph 19 by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that very defence of the accused was not acceptable. Apart from that Trial Court taken note of the fact that when the suggestion was made that accused is facing other criminal case filed by one Nagaraj and the same was denied. However, when the document of Ex.P6 and P7 which are joint memo and order sheet in Criminal Appeal before the District and Sessions Court, Bangalore, wherein the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37185 CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2026 accused himself has entered into compromise with complainant by name Nagaraj and settled the matter and the same was confronted to him. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of DW1 is not trustworthy and convicted on 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 having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence taken note of the admission on the part of PW1 during the course of cross-examination and also taken note of the evidence of PW1 in paragraph 18 and taken note of defence which was taken by the DW1 was discussed in paragraph 19 and in paragraph 20, Appellate Court held that the bank has not return the Cheque on the ground that there is material alteration on the Cheque but Cheque was returned for ‘funds insufficient’. Accused does not dispute his signature on the Cheque. Hence, held that when the signature on the Cheque is admitted, the presumption is that the Cheque was made or drawn for the consideration on the date which is mentioned in the Cheque. So also, with regard to the complaint - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37185 CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2026 was lodged, Ex.D1 and D2 were taken note of. The complaint was lodged before the Kalyanagara Police Station. On perusal of the said complaint there is mention of only cheque book, but it does not mention to which bank the cheque book belonged and it does not state that the cheque book had signed cheques. Hence, the very defence theory of the accused was not accepted by the Appellate Court and 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. 7. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that defence set out by the petitioner was not acceptable. Also both the Courts have not considered the fact that accused was a student who was pursuading the studies during the year 2011 to 2021 and he never been into any such alleged business of the granites and the same was not considered. 313 Statement was mandatory before concluding the case on merits. The - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37185 CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2026 statement ought to have been recorded under Section 313 and there cannot be the finality of the case without recording the same. 8. Having taken note of the grounds which have been urged, this Court held that 313 statement is not mandatory and it is the duty of the accused to appear before the court and explain incriminating circumstances. If he fails to appear and tender his evidence or his statement as against the incriminating circumstances, the same cannot be a ground to acquit the accused. The duty of the accused is to explain the incriminating circumstances and the said contention cannot be accepted. 9. The other contention that accused was a student and he was not interested in business also cannot be accepted and very case of the complainant is that accused and his father both are running the granite business and in that connection only, accused was approached the complainant for hand loan and issued subject matter of Cheque towards his liability. The issuance of cheque is not disputed and also the issuance of notice is not disputed and no reply was given. Accused would - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37185 CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2026 have taken the specific defence immediately after the receipt of notice and instead of that, after the receipt of notice, complaint was given as per Ex.D1 and NCR was given as per Ex.D2 and police also not entertained the attempt made by the accused. When all these materials were taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and held that consistent evidence is found with regard to the case of complainant. When the orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court not suffer from its legality and correctness, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN