- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411482024 NC: 2026:KHC:37689 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1003 OF 2024 BETWEEN: K KARTHIKEYAN S/O KADRISHAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.17/1 NARAYANASWAMY BUILDING 2ND ‘A’ MAIN, 2ND CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI BANGALORE - 560 030 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B R, ADVOCATE) AND: D KARUNAKARAN S/O LATE DEVISIKAMANI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.29/1, 5TH CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT ADUGODI, BANGALORE - 560 030 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SOMASEKHAR NAIDU B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411482024 NC: 2026:KHC:37689 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2024 SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.1098/2023 ORDER DTD 23.04.2024 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 10.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.8657/2021 and also against the judgment dated 23.04.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.1098/2023. 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 complainant and accused, his mother Smt. Niraimathi are local residents of Nanjappa Layout and having acquaintance to each other for past 13 years. The accused had borrowed hand loans from the complainant on several occasions for purpose of house building and for other urgent family financial necessities totaling a sum of Rs.4,43,000/- and accused had promised to repay the said - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411482024 NC: 2026:KHC:37689 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2024 amount in a short time. After the stipulated period, the complainant approached the accused and on repeated requests, the subject matter of cheque was issued on 04.08.2020. The said cheque was presented but the same was returned with an endorsement ‘Payment stopped by drawer’. Hence, legal notice was issued and the same was served and reply was given in terms of Ex.P6, but not comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured 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 as DW1 and he got marked documents at Ex.D1 and D2 and he was also subjected to 313 statement. The Trial Court having considered the defence which was taken and in paragraph 19, extracted the admission on the part of DW1. Though, accused contend that cheque was lost and the same was misused by the complainant but categorical admission was made that earlier, his mother also borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- i.e., in the year 2013 and in the year 2017, by pledging in the house property, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411482024 NC: 2026:KHC:37689 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2024 again they have taken loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and except this transaction in respect of this Cheque, there was no other transaction. The Trial Court taken note of the admission on the part of DW1 and in detail discussed the same wherein DW1 deposed that both of them are having acquaintance with each other and accused has disputed the signature on Ex.P1 and he categorically admits that except the cheque transaction, there is no other transaction but categorical admission was given that in 2013, his mother had availed the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant through cheque and so also taken note of documents at Ex.P1 and P2 with regard to the Ex.D2 also discussed in paragraph 20 by the Trial Court. In paragraph 21 discussed that when the defence was taken that the cheque was misused, no complaint was given for having misusing the Cheque except lodging the complaint stating that cheque was lost. In paragraph 24, Trial Court comes to the conclusion that accused has not taken any steps against the complainant for misusing the Cheque. When cheque is admitted and the same is also given for repayment, accused has not rebutted the case - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411482024 NC: 2026:KHC:37689 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2024 of the complainant placing cogent evidence. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that after receipt of demand notice, reply was given and admitted the Cheque in the defence and considering material on record, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court not committed an error in convicting the accused and 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. 7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this court is that transaction has taken place according to the component during January 2020 wherein the petitioner has approached the respondent for financial help for a sum of Rs.4,43,000/- in order to meet urgent family - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411482024 NC: 2026:KHC:37689 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2024 financial necessities. In the cross-examination of PW1, he has failed to mention the date of transaction and making payment to the petitioner herein. Under the circumstances, complainant failed to establish his case before the trial Court. The counsel also vehemently contend that respondent has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he does not have any document in order to show he had the amount of Rs.4,43,000/- as on the date of lending the money. The Trial Court failed to consider the capacity to lend the money. Hence, it requires interference of this court. 8. The counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not committed any error while considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of material on record, it discloses that the specific case of the complainant is that both - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411482024 NC: 2026:KHC:37689 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2024 the complainant and accused and mother of accused are having acquaintance with each other from last 13 years. In order to substantiate the same, the admission given by DW1 was extracted in paragraph 19 by the Trial Court judgment and the same is clear that in 2013, the mother of accused had availed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant by way of Cheque and the accused did not deny the same. But only he says that he has to enquire with his mother. But in the cross examination, he admits that in 2017 also they have taken the money by pledging the house property for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and also categorically admits that both of them are having acquaintance with each other and except this cheque transaction, there is no other transaction. When such admission was given by DW1 during the course of cross- examination, the said admission takes away the case of the accused. The Trial Court also taken note of Ex.D1 and D2. When there is a fair admission on the part of DW1 regarding transaction is concerned, particularly in respect of the subject matter of Cheque and only contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that cheque was given for an amount of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411482024 NC: 2026:KHC:37689 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2024 Rs.5,00,000/- and not for Rs.4,43,000/- but it is the specific case of complainant that when the amount was borrowed in a sum of Rs.4,43,000/-, cheque was given for Rs.5,00,000/- which includes interest. When cheque was not disputed and availment of loan is not disputed, the difference amount is not a ground to comes to other conclusion. The other contention that not having any capacity also cannot be accepted when there is a clear admission on the part of DW1 that earlier, his mother had availed the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant by way of cheque and subsequently availed the loan. Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court considered the evidence available on record considering admission of DW1. Hence, the order of both the Courts does not suffers from its legality and correctness. This Court can exercise its jurisdiction only if there is miscarriage of justice in non-consideration of material on record and such circumstances is not warranted in the case on hand. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN