- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010532102024 NC: 2026:KHC:37708 CRL.RP No. 1321 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.1321 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. M. RAFEEQ AHAMMAD SON OF HAMAD SAB AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT SHIRAWALA ROAD ANALEKOPPA EXTENSION SAGAR TOWN SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI BIMBADHAR M GOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. UMESH K S SON OF KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT GAJANANA NILAYA LECTURERS COLONY GANDHI NAGAR, SAGAR TOWN SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASIDDARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010532102024 NC: 2026:KHC:37708 CRL.RP No. 1321 of 2024 AND JMFC COURT SAGAR IN C.C.NO.89/2018 DATED 16/11/2022 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 16.11.2022 passed in C.C.No.89/2018 and also against the judgment dated 14.09.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.10001/2023. 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 on 01.08.2017, accused had borrowed sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for the development of his fruit business. While borrowing the loan, accused executed an on demand promissory note, promising to repay the loan amount within one year with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As per the promise, accused did not repay the loan amount within the time stipulated and after repeated remand, accused issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-. When the said cheque was - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010532102024 NC: 2026:KHC:37708 CRL.RP No. 1321 of 2024 presentation, the same was dishonored for ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the complainant issued the notice and same was returned with an endorsement ‘not claimed’. But he did not comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and accused was secured. Accused did not plead guilty and claims the trial. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as CW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C8. The accused not laid any defence evidence. But only taken 3 defences. The first defence was that, the cheque was not issued in respect of the legally enforceable debt and second defence was that notice was not served and third defence was that there is a discrepancy in narration of the facts. The trial Court taken note of the transaction between the complainant and accused and also promissory note was also issued that is also marked as Ex.P8 and cheque was marked as Ex.P1. The case of the complainant is that though accused had executed the promissory note, he did not repay the amount with interest, hence, issued the subject matter of Cheque and legal notice was issued in terms of Ex.C3 and the same was - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010532102024 NC: 2026:KHC:37708 CRL.RP No. 1321 of 2024 returned with an endorsement that ‘not claimed’. But it is very specific case of the complainant that address mentioned in the legal notice is correct. The trial Court has taken note that the address is correct and the same is not disputed and invoked Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and comes to the conclusion that notice was served but not complied with the demand. Hence, comes to the conclusion that defence is not probable and not rebutted the evidence of complainant. Thus, 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 in paragraph 14, with regard to the defence is concerned, discussed in detail that accused has taken contention that complainant has not given any loan and he has not taken any loan from the complainant. But during the course of cross examination of PW1, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 with regard to his defence is concerned and the same is in detail discussed in paragraph 15 and so also 313 statement of the accused was considered in paragraph 16 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010532102024 NC: 2026:KHC:37708 CRL.RP No. 1321 of 2024 and taken note that the cheque which is marked as Ex.C1 was not disputed and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. The counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument for admission of this revision petition also relies upon those three grounds that cheque is not towards the liability; notice is not served on him and there is a discrepancy in narration of the facts. The counsel would submit that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the defence of petitioner and not considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective. Hence, interference of this Court is required. 7. The counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that Trial Court not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and there is no any defence evidence with regard to disputing that it was not the cheque issued for legally enforceable debt. Hence, interference of this Court does not require. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010532102024 NC: 2026:KHC:37708 CRL.RP No. 1321 of 2024 record, it discloses that the cheque was admitted by DW1. The specific case of the complainant that accused had borrowed the amount of Rs.3,50,000 /-, but he had to pay the amount with interest and hence, he had issued the cheque for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The transaction was taken place in 2017. With regard to the service of notice also, Trial Court taken note of General Clauses Act and held that address mentioned in the notice is correct address and the same is not disputed by accused. The Trial Court also answered the points considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Appellate Court also reassessed the material on record and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error while convicting the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act. When reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court having reassessed the material on record, and order not suffers from any miscarriage of justice and also not from its legality and correctness, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010532102024 NC: 2026:KHC:37708 CRL.RP No. 1321 of 2024 9. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN