Dismissed¶33

S. H. Umesh v. M. Subramani

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2026CRL.RP/265/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC CRL.RP 265/2025 dismissed 29.07.2026 (H.P. Sandesh, J.); revision u/s 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. (as 438 r/w 442 BNSS) against conviction dated 16.06.2022 in C.C.No.3710/2020 confirmed in Crl.A.No.843/2022; statutory notice unanswered; Rs.95,000 hand-loan defence unsubstantiated; no repayment evidence; cheques Exs.P1-P2 not collected, no stop-payment intimation to banker; P.W.1/D.W.1 evidence; 50% deposit condition of 20.02.2025 not complied; acquittal sought and refused.

What did the court decide?

The accused received the statutory notice, gave no reply, and his knowledge of the contents of the statutory notice was not in dispute. ¶27

S. H. Umesh Vs M. Subramani — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.06.2022 in C.C.No.3710/2020, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.843/2022, ought to be set aside and the petitioner acquitted. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The accused received the statutory notice, gave no reply, and his knowledge of the contents of the statutory notice was not in dispute.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The defence that the accused received only Rs.95,000/- from the complainant as hand loan was not substantiated - nothing was produced to support it (Trial Court's reason at paragraph 19, noted in this Court's review).

¶27

Key takeaways

No positive evidence of repayment of the loan amount was placed on record, and the accused took no steps to collect cheques Exs.P1 and P2 from the complainant (Trial Court's note at paragraph 20).ratio¶31
Nor had the accused given any intimation to the banker to stop payment in caution.ratio¶31
The First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.843/2022 confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court considering the material on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.RP No. 265 of 2025 (filed under S. 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., as S. 438 r/w 442 BNSS), High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh, J.), order dated 29-07-2026: revision DISMISSED. The petition sought to set aside the conviction dated 16.06.2022 in C.C.No.3710/2020 (VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru) and its confirmation dated 04.12.2024 in Crl.A.No.843/2022 (LXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge). In its review the Court noted: the accused received the statutory notice but gave no reply, his knowledge of its contents being undisputed; his defence of having received only Rs.95,000/- from the complainant as hand loan was unsubstantiated; no positive evidence of repayment was placed on record; cheques Exs.P1 and P2 were neither collected from the complainant nor was any stop-payment intimation given to the banker; and the First Appellate Court had confirmed the conviction on the material on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1. The petitioner had also failed to comply with the direction dated 20.02.2025 to deposit 50% of the amount. Accordingly, no ground was made out to entertain the revision petition, which was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39456 CRL.RP No. 265 of 2025

¶3

CNR: KAHC010106272025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.265 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S.H. UMESH S/O. LATE S.R.HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT LOKESH NILAYA 1^ST FLOOR, ABOVE CAUVERY TEXTILES MARIYAMMA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD SRIRAMAPURA, JAKKUR POST BENGALURU-560 064.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

M. SUBRAMANI S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.79/2, NEAR BUS STOP, SRIRAMAPURA, JAKKUR POST, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶18

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 JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.3710/2020 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:39456 CRL.RP No. 265 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CNR: KAHC010106272025

¶22

JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM, BENGALURU AND JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2024 IN CRL.A.NO.843/2022 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU CITY AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE RP.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount, inclusive of the amount already deposited. Inspite of it, the same is not complied. This matter is listed for admission and having perused the material on record, no reply was given by the accused when notice was issued.

¶27

The Trial Court also in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 taken note of material on record and given reasons in paragraph No.19 that when the defendant taken the defence that he has received Rs.95,000/- only from the complainant as hand loan, but nothing is produced to substantiate the same. The accused has received the statutory notice and no reply was given and he had the knowledge of contents of statutory notice is not in dispute. The Trial Court also in paragraph No.20 taken

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:39456 CRL.RP No. 265 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CNR: KAHC010106272025

¶31

note that for having repaid the loan amount to complainant, no positive evidence is placed on record and accused has not taken any steps to collect the Cheques in question-Exs.P1 and P2 from the complainant nor he has given intimation to banker to stop the payment in caution. Having considered the material on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentence the accused.

¶32

The First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.843/2022 also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court considering the material on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and not produced any document for having repaid the amount and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Therefore, no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition.

¶33

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶35

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

S. H. Umesh v. M. Subramani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. H. Umesh v. M. Subramani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shree Vatsa Technologies Vs Corporation Bank

Sri K S Santhosh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. N Narasimha Reddy Vs the Bangalore Commercial Transporters Credit Co. Operative Society Limited

Mr Mohammed Nasir Vs Smt D Saritha

Sri Madhusudhan G Vs Smt. M a Chethan

Shri. Chandrashekar Vs Shri Shivalakshmana