Revision petitioner challenged conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under S.138 NI Act. Court found the petition failed as the accused admitted executing documents but claimed non-payment via a third party whom he never noticed. Dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AVINASH A P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SRI MOHAN C by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH S/O N C CHALUVAIAH, COURT OF AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, KARNATAKA 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
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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.
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.
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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.
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
HC-KAR
CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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.
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010793592025
Similarly, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.D1 to D8.
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
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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.
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010793592025
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
NC: 2026:KHC:37168 CRL.RP No. 1866 of 2025
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010793592025
same is not warranted and materials are considered by both the Courts and the judgments do not suffer from its legality and correctness.
pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed .
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SSD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
SRI SRIKANTH V S/O LATE VISHWANATHA
SRI MOHAN C
H.P.SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
