Dismissed¶37

Sri Annanagouda R H v. Sri Aravindmurthy

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2026CRL.RP/217/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, H.P. Sandesh J., order dated 10.07.2026 in CRL.RP No.217 of 2026 - criminal revision against conviction directing payment of Rs.5,65,000/- dismissed; concurrent findings of Trial Court (Nanjangud JMFC) and Appellate Court (VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysore) upheld; limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Ss.397/401 Cr.PC (Ss.438/442 BNSS); defence of money transferred from accounts of Gajendra and Yuvaraj considered; presumption not rebutted.

What did the court decide?

Both the Courts below having taken note of the defence of the accused and considered the material on record, there are no grounds to entertain the revision petition; the scope of revision is very limited. ¶32

Sri Annanagouda R H Vs Sri Aravindmurthy — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35125 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.217 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI ANNANAGOUDA R.H., S/O. LATE RUDRAGOUDA H. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANGAPUR, KARADIGUDDA POST, MANVI TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584123, RAJARAJESHWARI NILAYA.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. R. HARINATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI ARAVINDMURTHY, S/O. JAYANNA B.R. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.34, EWS, 2^ND FLOOR, 28^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, J.P. NAGAR, MYSURU.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 of CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSORE, IN CRL.A NO.164/2025 DATED 21.11.2025 AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NANJANGUD IN C.C.NO.5125/2022 DATED 25.03.2025 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:35125 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

¶25

counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶26

2. The Trial Court having considered the factual

¶27

aspects of the case, convicted the accused to pay an amount of Rs.5,65,000/-. The Trial Court also taken note of no defence evidence and discussed in paragraph Nos.26 and 27. The Trial Court also discussed the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in detail and the accused has not rebutted the evidence of the complainant and invoked the presumption and presumption is also not rebutted and hence, convicted and sentenced the accused.

¶28

3. The same was challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court re-assessed the evidence available on record, particularly in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 and observed that except the suggestions in the cross-

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:35125 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2026

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited. During the crossexamination of P.W.1, the defence counsel suggested that the amounts were transferred to the account of the accused from the account of one Gajendra and Yuvaraj and the complainant specifically contended that when the accused approached him seeking financial assistance, he had paid the money by getting the money from his relatives and in order to prove the said fact, the complainant also produced the statement of accounts as Ex.P.7. The amounts were transferred to the account of the accused from the accounts of one Gajendra and Yuvaraj, is also not in dispute. The defence was also taken note of and the same is considered by the Appellate Court. When both the Courts have taken note of the defence of the accused and considered the material on record, I do not find any grounds to entertain the revision petition and the scope of revision is very limited. Only in circumstances of the judgment suffers from its legality and correctness and if it leads to miscarriage of justice in non-

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:35125 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

consideration of material, then only the Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the criminal revision

¶37

petition is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶39