- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.813 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUKTIYAR BHASHA S/O MOULA SAB DAVALAGI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OWNER OF K.G.N. ENGINEERING WORKS SORABA ROAD, ANAVATTI, SORABA TALUK R/O THIMMAPURA -ANAVATTI, NEAR ANGANAWADI KENDRA, 1ST CROSS, THIMMAPURA, ANAVATTI TOWN, ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK-577 235. …PETITIONER (BY MS.BABYYADAV B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PUNDALEEK B.K. S/O BASAVANTHAPPA, AGE: 57 YEARS,OCC:TEACHER, R/O C.D. HAVERI BUILDING BACKSIDE ANAVATTI TOWN, SORABA TALUK-577 235. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VASANTHA KUMAR K M, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED DATED 28.011.2024 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA IN CC.NO.97/2023, CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2025, PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA (AT SAGAR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10052/2024 AND THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE AQUITTED FROM THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST HIM. 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 matter is listed for admission. 2. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the counsel for respondent. 3. On the previous occasion, the counsel for revision petitioner took time to settle the matter but not come up with any compromise proposal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no such proposal of settlement and the revision petitioner even not contacted the respondent and respondent gave the instructions that no such compromise was entered between the complainant and the accused. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 5. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court is that the complainant is working as a teacher in the Government Higher Primary School, Samanavalli Village. The accused is running AGN Engineering and Welding Workshop at Samanavalli, Anavatti Road. The complainant and accused are known to each other. In the first week of August 2021, the accused has approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, but the complainant said that he had no such amount, he had only Rs.1,00,000/- and given the same to the accused on 02.08.2021. The accused has executed a receipt with regard to receiving of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. The accused again approached the complainant in the middle of August for hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant has given Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused through a cheque. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was credited to the account of accused from the account of complainant. The accused has agreed to repay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within one - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 year. Later, the complainant has approached the accused and requested him to repay the amount. But the accused stated that somebody has to pay the amount to him and he assured to repay the amount. The complainant again approached the accused on 14.10.2022 and asked him to repay the amount. The accused has told to the complainant that he has amount in his bank account and issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainant has presented the said cheque and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant has issued the demand notice and the same was served on accused. Inspite of service of said notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’). The cognizance was taken and accused was secured. He did not plead guilty and claims the trial. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 6. In order to prove the case of complainant, he is examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P12. The accused was subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 and thereafter led evidence himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.D1 to 9 and also examined one witness as D.W.2. The trial Court having taken note of the evidence of complainant as well as the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2., the accused set up defence that he had done the work of complainant and to that effect, he gave the money and no liability and however admitted the cheque and signature of the complainant. He also relies upon the document at Exs.D6 and D7. But complainant's signature is not found in Exs.D6 and D7. P.W.1 also denied the suggestion to the document at Exs.D6 and D7. However, an attempt is made for producing and confronting the photographs of the house of complainant and the said photographs were taken when the complainant was not in the house and the same are denied. The trial Court not accepted the defence of the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 accused. However, taking into note of the admission and issuance of the cheque to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and the specific case of the complainant that he made the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- at the first instance and thereafter, he made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque and the same was also honoured. With regard to defence is concerned, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that in the reply given under Ex.P9 that complainant has to pay the labour charges to the accused. The complainant visited the welding shop of the accused and took his cheque and filed a false case. The same is found in reply notice at Ex.P9 and comes to conclusion that if really that being the case of the accused, he would have raised a defence at the earlier stage while giving the reply itself. But defence which was taken is an after thought and not accepted the case of accused and thereby convicted and sentenced the accused and the same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10052/2024. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 7. The appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, particularly taking note of evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, comes to the conclusion that evidence of D.W.2 will not come to the aid of D.W.1 as he was not aware of any transaction between the complainant and accused and the same is admitted by D.W.2 and reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 8. Now the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material available on record and particularly the counsel brought to notice of this Court the grounds urged in the revision petition that both the Courts failed to see that the evidence led by the accused had completely disproved the case of complainant and had shown the falsity of the complainant with regard to misusing of cheque and the same is not properly appreciated. Both the Courts failed to see that the cheque in question was - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 not issued on the date and time as alleged in the complaint and the same was taken and misused by the complainant. The presumption drawn by the trial Court is erroneous and committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent would vehemently contend that when the notice of reply was issued, the defence which was taken during the course of cross-examination was not set out and the total denial of transaction in the reply notice. The same is taken note of by the trial Court and the appellate Court and there is no error on the part of both the Courts and a discussion was made by the trial Court in paragraph No.10 of its judgment. Having assessed the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of P.W.2, rightly comes to the conclusion that the evidence of D.W.2, who stood as surety for the accused in two criminal cases and he has no knowledge about the transaction held between complainant and accused. D.W.2 is only a surety for the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 cases which have been filed against the accused and hence not accepted the case. 10. Having taken note of the reasoning given by the trial Court and the appellate Court and also considering the evidence of P.W.1 as well as DWs.1 and 2 and admitted the issuance of cheque and defence which was taken was not set out in the reply notice at Ex. P9 and the same is an afterthought defence which was taken with regard to the work done by accused and though it is contended that the complainant was liable to pay labour charges to that work is concerned, nothing is placed on record. Though an attempt is made before the trial Court producing photographs at Exs.D1 to D4 and also the document at Exs.D6 and D7, rightly comes to the conclusion that Exs.D6 and D7 are not proved by examining the author of documents. When such reasoning is given by the trial Court, I am of the view that both the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court not suffered from its legality and correctness. This Court - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010338872025 NC: 2026:KHC:39194 CRL.RP No. 813 of 2025 can exercise the revisional powers only if any miscarriage is done by the trial Court while considering the evidence and so also reassessing of evidence by the appellate Court. The same is not warrants for consideration of this revision petition and scope of revision is very limited. Hence, no grounds are made out to entertain this revision and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33