- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 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.917 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI M MAHESH REDDY AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA R/A NO.53, 5TH ‘A’ CROSS 21ST MAIN, MCHS COLONY B T M SECOND STAGE BANGALORE 560076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATRAMANA M K, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S SWIKRUTI VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED OPFFICE AT NO 349 15TH ‘A’ CROSS 6TH MAIN, 6TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560102 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI GIRISH SHIVA PRAKASH …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 (U/S.438 R/W SECTION 442 OF BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.25082/2025 BY THE HONBLE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL, 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 dated 30.01.2025 passed in C.C.No.54873/2021 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment dated 25.04.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.25082/2025 by the Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused for the purpose of construction of the school project approached the complainant to lend money and hence, the complainant has transferred the amount to the accused by way of RTGS to a sum of Rs.3 crore. The accused agreed to repay the said - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 amount within 6 months. At the request of the complainant, accused has issued the cheques for security purpose in respect of the said investment amount as alleged at para 4 of the complaint. The said cheques were not presented for encashment at the request of the accused. Later, accused has issued fresh post-dated cheques for the repayment of the said amount. Out of the said cheques, Cheque bearing No.904394 dated 16.04.2021 for Rs.75,00,000/- was presented but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’. The same was intimated to the accused and also sent the legal notice on 05.08.2021 and it was served on the accused on 07.08.2021 but accused gave an untenable reply. Hence, complaint was lodged invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before Trial Court and he did not plead guilty. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the Managing Director of the complainant company has been examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 P7. On the other hand, accused himself examined as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D11. The Trial Court taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. In the cross examination of PW1, suggestion was made that when the earlier 4 cheques were issued are taken back and he categorically deposes that present cheque and other cheques were issued and those cheques are fresh cheques. Accused also in his oral examination-in-chief, he contended that Smt. Divya is the wife of the complainant and they are the Directors of XLCR company and Rs.3 crore was given by the complainant as an investment for the resort business. He further contended that for that reason, he has given four cheques of Rs.75,00,000/- each as security purpose which are at Ex.D1 to D4. He admitted that complainant has requested him in writing to return the amount as per Ex.D7 and D8. Further contended that Sri Logoury D’Mello is the relative of the complainant wife and she has filed the petition before the commercial court. He contented that complainant and his wife are the partners of Moon Light Resort, a partnership - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 firm. He contented that he has given Ex.P1 cheque for security purpose. 5. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he is doing resort and real estate business and having Montessori. He admitted that complainant has paid Rs.3 crore to him by way of RTGS. He admitted that he has issued the cheque in question to the complainant to repay Rs.3 crore. He deposed that in the year 2020, he had taken back his 4 cheques of Rs.75,00,000/- each from the complainant. He admitted that he is having no business with XLCR company. He deposed that he will tender a document to show that the complainant has paid Rs.3 crore for the resort business. He denied the suggestion that there is no link or connection between the amount paid by the complainant with the resort business. 6. The Trial Court taking into note of the evidence of complainant as well as the accused comes to the conclusion that Ex.P1-cheque belongs to the accused and no dispute to that effect. Also taken note of admission that subject matter of cheque was given to the complainant to repay the amount - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 of Rs.3 crore and he even admitted that earlier 4 cheques which were given as security were collected back and he had issued fresh cheque. When the defence was set out that the amount of Rs.3 crore was invested for the resort business, accused categorically admitted that there is no such averment in Ex.P6 reply notice. Thus, the reply notice is different from the defence which was taken in the cross- examination. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that only an after thought defence was taken that investment was made towards the resort business. Hence, the defence of the accused was not accepted and convicted and sentenced the accused. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, 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 taking note of the defence which was taken during the course of cross-examination of PW1 wherein specific contention was taken that amount of which the loan was paid - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 is towards the investment for the resort business and reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in paragraphs 18 to 20 and also taken note of Ex.P6 reply notice and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court not committed in convicting the accused since he has taken different defence in the reply notice as well as in the cross examination of PW1. Also taken note of the admission on the part of PW1 during the course of cross-examination that the cheques which were given for repayment of amount were taken back and issued fresh Cheques for repayment. 8. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material on record. Both the Courts have fully ignored that respondent has failed to produce any document to show that petitioner is liable to pay the cheque amount as on date of cheque. The counsel also would submit that resolution dated 24.08.2021 does not bear any common seal of respondent company and there is no mention of which court and under which - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 provisions to be acted in the notice is not stated. The counsel also would submit that the endorsement dated 15.07.2021 as per Ex.P2 is ‘payment stopped by the drawer’ hence, it is clear to say that bank endorsement not to say funds insufficient or exceeds arrangement, but because of stop payment given by the drawer, the Cheque returned dishonoured. The counsel also vehemently contend that both the Trial Court and Appellate Court failed to take note of the transaction and particular defence which was taken by the accused that the investment was made to the tune of Rs.3 crore for the purpose of the resort business and specifically denied in Ex.P6 reply notice stating that no such amount was lent for the construction of the school and totally denied the case of the complainant. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has taken note of the reply which was given in terms of Ex.P6 wherein there is only total denial of the case of the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 complainant and there is no any specific averment that Rs.3 crore was paid towards the investment for resort business but transaction was with regard to the construction of the school building and availed the loan. The same was taken note of by both the Courts. The very defence which was taken was not accepted by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record not found any error on the part of the Trial Court in convicting the accused. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. 10. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, it discloses that the accused not disputes the fact that he had received the amount of Rs.3 crore by way of RTGS. The only defence which was set out in the Cross-examination that Rs.3 crore was invested for the resort business and not lent the money for the construction of the school building. But in the legal notice, it is specifically mentioned that an amount of Rs.3 crore was lent for the purpose of - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 construction of the school building. Admittedly, the accused is doing the business as well as running the montessori is not in dispute. For construction of school building, he categorically says that he availed the loan from the Canara Bank and executed the document in favour of the Canara Bank. But only contention is that the cheques were issued as security. But the fact that he had earlier issued 4 cheques for an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- each to the tune of Rs.3 crore and the same was taken back and fresh cheques were also issued and the same is not in dispute. When contra defence was taken during the course of cross examination and nothing is stated in the reply notice that the amount of Rs.3 crore was invested for the purpose of the resort business and the defence is that the amount was invested for resort business, the same was taken note of by the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court while re-appreciating the material on record and issuance of cheque is not in dispute and defence which was urged before the Trial Court is not accepted by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court and reasoned order was passed by both the Courts. When the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378212026 NC: 2026:KHC:37183 CRL.RP No. 917 of 2026 order was not suffers from its legality and correctness, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. The scope of revision is very limited. Only if the order of the Trial Court and Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and the same leads to miscarriage of justice, then only this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. But in the case on hand, no such circumstances warranted. Hence, very contention of the counsel that it was an investment for resort business and there is no liability cannot be accepted. Thus, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN