- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503572025 NC: 2026:KHC:39195 CRL.RP No. 1141 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. 1141 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI ABDUL KAREEM MOHAMMED ALI S/O MAHAMMED ALI SAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT AJJARANI ROAD SIRSI TALUK,BANAVASI, UTTARA KANNADA- 581 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKARA R V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI DEEPAK GOPALA ANKOLEKAR S/O GOPALA ANKOLEKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC: PINEAPPLE GROWERS R/AT ASHOK ROAD, SAGARA TOWN,SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503572025 NC: 2026:KHC:39195 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2025 SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR DTD 11.04.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.10002/2025 IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT ANNEXURE-A 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 Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and also the counsel for respondent. 2. When this matter was listed in the earlier occasion for admission, the counsel for the revision petitioner took time to settle the matter. 3. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that the revision petitioner has not come forward to settle the matter and even counsel submits that if the revision petitioner is ready to pay the cheque amount, the respondent is ready to accept the same. But, the counsel appearing for revision petitioner again seeks time. 4. Though this was the transaction of the year 2017 and having taken note of the material on record, the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503572025 NC: 2026:KHC:39195 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2025 cheque was given towards the purchase of pineapple in the year 2017 and the same is also the part payment and only the defence which was taken is that the accused made payment of Rs.50,000/- and also remaining Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and though it was denied by the accused that he gave Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and the same is discussed in paragraph No.25 of the Judgment of the trial Court and even extracted the admission on the part of accused in paragraph No.23. Hence, based on the material available on record and the same is considered by the trial Court and the appellate Court and both the judgments do not suffer from its legality and correctness. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain this revision petition since no ground is made out. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36