- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 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. 1866 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SRIKANTH V S/O LATE VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT, NO.151/2, ANUSHREE, 2ND BLOCK, SRI RAMA ROAD, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 028. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH A P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MOHAN C S/O N C CHALUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.135, TURAHALLI MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA HOUSING BOARD SOCIETY, GUBBALALA, SUBRAMANYAPURA, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 058. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VENKATESH C R,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVI ADDL CMM BENGALURU, PASSED IN C.C.NO.14824/2017 DATED 31.01.2022 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF NI ACT, AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED LIX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-60) IN CRL.A.NO.1779/2023 DATED 05.04.2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This matter is listed for admission. 3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court is that the accused is his friend since five to six years and the accused was working in ‘Senarcho Engineers’ as an Engineer and was drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and the complainant has also a four wheeler automobile dealer and Engineer and in the year 2014 to 2016, the accused had some legal family necessity and to repay of hand loan to some third parties. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 In this regard, the accused had approached him in the second week of August 2015 and has requested for financial help and asked a hand loan amount of Rs.25 lakhs and at that time the accused had assured him that, he will hand over his house property documents as security pertaining to the hand loan amount, in this regard, he being friend of accused has agreed to lend money to the accused for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs at the rate of bank interest and at the time of requesting the hand loan amount, the accused has informed the hand loan amount, the accused has informed him that, the accused is planning to sell his house property situated at Thyagarajanagar, after which the accused will repay the hand loan amount along with interest. 4. Further, the complainant contend that in order to arrange the said hand loan amount to give to the accused, he had withdrawn the amount Rs.10 lakhs from his account and also adjusted another 10 lakhs from few - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 of his friends and lend the amount of Rs.20 lakhs to the accused in September, 2015. At the time of receiving the hand loan amount, the accused has executed promissory notes, cheques along with photocopies of his house property and address proof documents. Further at the time of asking the hand loan, the accused has refused to repay the aforesaid amount within one year. 5. It is also his contention that after completion of one year, the complainant approached the accused and demanded the aforesaid hand loan amount the accused has requested some more time of another five months to repay the hand loan and further assured without fail he will repay the said hand loan amount with interest. Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and asked him repay the said hand loan amount. After so many reminders, the accused issued two cheques amounting to Rs.10 lakhs each towards discharge of hand loan amount. On presentation of those two cheques, an - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused and the same was duly served. Inspite of service of notice, the accused did not repay the hand loan amount. Hence, the complainant filed complaint against accused. The cognizance was taken and accused was secured. He pleaded not guilty and claims the trial. 6. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.C1 to C11. During the course of cross examination of D.W.1, the complainant has produced certified copy of partition deed as per Ex.C12. The complainant also examined another witness P.W.2 and complainant has produced pronote and consideration receipts as per Ex.C13 and C14. During the course of cross examination of D.W.1, the complainant has produced the certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.4288/2017 as per Ex.C15. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 Similarly, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.D1 to D8. 7. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1, suggestion was made to the witness that he had given cheques to his friend Satish Kumar and the said cheques are misused and there was no any transaction between the complainant and accused and the said defence cross examination was denied by P.W.1 and during the cross examination of accused, he categorically admitted the signatures available in the cheque and also the notice sent to his address and also admits that he has not taken any action against Satish Kumar for having misused the cheque. Having considered all these factors, the trial Court convicted and sentence the accused. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1779/2023. The appellate Court also reassessed both oral and documentary evidence on record, confirms the order of the trial Court particularly while taking note of - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 the answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 in paragraph No.17, he categorically admits his signature on two cheques and also admits his signature on promissory note and so also receipts for having received the amount i.e. Exs.C13 and 14 and signatures at Exs.C13 (a) and 13(b) and 14(a) and 14(b). When suggestion was made that he specifically mentioned that amounts are received from the complainant and also admits his signature. But, he states that he has not got typed the contents. Further, the accused categorically admits that the address mentioned in the notice is correct and he has only signed the said documents. Having taken note of testimony of D.W.1, it is clear that at the time of availing loan, the accused had executed on demand promissory note and consideration receipt. He being an educated, he cannot say that he has signed Ex.C13 and Ex.C14 and the contents were kept blank. The appellate Court also having taken note of the defence which has been re-appreciated particularly with regard to the defence taken that the cheques are issued to - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 one Satish Kumar in the month of February and March and not caused any legal notice to the said Satish Kumar to return the Cheque and other documents in paragraph No.29 of its judgment and confirm the same. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner is before this Court by filing this present revision petition. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is no transaction between the complainant and accused and cheques are given in favour of one Satish Kumar and the said Satish Kumar colluded with the respondent, misused the said cheques by filing the false case against the revision petitioner. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent submits that the admissions on the part of D.W.1 was considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and also contend that the accused has not examined the said Satish Kumar. In reply to the same, the counsel for - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 revision petitioner would submits that the very case against Satish Kumar is that he had misused the cheques and question of examining him does not arise. 10. Having considered the material available on record, D.W.1 categorically admitted that he did not examine Satish Kumar and he is his friend. The specific case of the complainant is that the accused approached the complainant and availed a hand loan of Rs.20 lakhs and also it is noted that the accused has only issued cheques but also issued promissory notes and consideration receipts, however he contends that he has not signed the Cheque and documents. But, if that is the case, considering the grounds which have been urged, extracted the answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1. at paragraph No. 17, he categorically admits his signature on two cheques and also admits his signature on promissory note and so also receipts for having received the amount i.e. Exs.C13 and 14 and signatures at - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 Exs.C13(a) and 13(b) and 14(a) and 14(b). when the suggestion was made that in terms of Ex.C13 and C14, he specifically mentioned that amounts are received from the complainant, but he admits his signature. But he says that he has not got typed the said contents. However, he categorically admits that address mentioned in the documents are correct. Having taken note of testimony of D.W.1, it is clear that at the time of availing loan, the accused had executed on demand promissory note and consideration receipt. He being an educated, he cannot say that he has signed Ex.C13 and Ex.C14 and the contents were kept blank. The appellate Court also having taken note of the defence which has been re-appreciated particularly with regard to the defence taken that the cheques are issued to one Satish Kumar in the month of February and March and not caused any legal notice to the said Satish Kumar to return the Cheque and the appellate Court also, having taken note of the defence, particularly with regard to the defence which he has taken that - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 cheques are given. But in paragraph No.29 has taken note of his admission that he had given the cheques in dispute to one Satish Kumar in the month of February-March. He had not issued notice to the said Satish Kumar calling upon him to return the cheques and other documents and also no action was taken against him and have confirmed the same. The main contention of the counsel appearing for revision petitioner before this Court is that there is no any transaction between the complainant and accused and the subject matter of cheques are given in favour of the Satish Kumar and the said Satishkumar has misused the same and also categorically admitted that he is his friend. 11. The specific case of the complainant is that he approached the complainant along with the said Satish Kumar. Further, it is to be noted that at the time of approaching the complainant, he had issued not only cheques and also the promissory note and consideration receipt. The said documents are confronted by P.W.1. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 The only contention is that he had signed the cheques and he had given the cheques in dispute to one Satish Kumar in the month of February-March. He also admitted that ultimately he has not issued notice to the said Satishkumar calling upon him to return the cheques and other documents and also no action was taken against the said Satish Kumar. Then the said contention of the counsel appearing for revision petitioner cannot be accepted and the trial Court and appellate Court have reconsidered the admission on the part of PW1 and the same is also extracted in the judgment. When such being the case, question of orders of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, suffering from its legality and correctness does not arise and only in case of any miscarriage of justice in considering the evidence, then this Court can exercise the revision powers. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of trial Court and appellate Court in considering the material and the question of considering the revision petition does not arise as the - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010793592025 NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025 same is not warranted and materials are considered by both the Courts and the judgments do not suffer from its legality and correctness. 12. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33