Krishnamurthy K H Vs Puttannagowda Channagowdra

KRISHNAMURTHY K H S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AT DEPARTMENT ON DAILY WAGES R/O NO.650/2, 2^ND MAIN 2^ND CROSS, LENIN NAGAR NEAR ITI QUATRESS NITTUVALLI DAVANAGERE-577004

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SMT. BABY YADAV B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: PUTTANNAGOWDA CHANNAGOWDRA S/O HANNAGOWDA CHANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O 999/3, 2^ND MAIN 2^ND CROSS, NEAR SHIVAPPAIAH CIRCLE DAVANAGERE-577002

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR K H, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. R SOWMYA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:30021 CRL.RP No. 599 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.102/2025 DTD 26.02.2026 AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2025 passed in C.C.No.3094/2023 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 26.02.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.102/2025 by the Appellate Court.

¶23

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court that accused and complainant are well known to each other since several years. The accused has approached the complainant on 08.12.2020 for financial assistance for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for domestic purpose and

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:30021 CRL.RP No. 599 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

received a loan of Rs.2,12,500/- through Cheque and Rs.2,87,500/- by way of cash. The accused assured the complainant that he would repay the loan amount within 3 months. But the same was not repaid. When the cheque was presented, the same was dishonored for the reason that ‘funds insufficient’ and notice was given and the same was served but no reply was given. Hence, filed the complaint and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty.

¶29

In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. The accused also examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D11. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the defence set out by the accused was not proved. Accused got marked the certified copy of order sheet in C.C.No.1925/2023 at Ex.D1 and he was also subjected for cross examination. But in the cross examination, he admitted issuance of the cheque and also the endorsement and acknowledgement of the notice and no reply was given and

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:30021 CRL.RP No. 599 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

also not initiated any action against the complainant for having issued the cheque and particularly admitted that Ex.D1 to D11 which are produced are not connected to this transaction. The Trial Court having taken note of the evidence of PW1 as well as the admissions of the part of DW1 comes to the conclusion that the complainant has proved the case. Though defence was set up, the same must be rebutted by leading cogent evidence and convicted and sentenced the accused.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, re-appreciated the evidence. In paragraph 12, taken note of the evidence of PW1 and also the suggestions made to PW1 and also extracted the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 and DW1. The defence of executing promissory note was considered and also taken note that the same was denied and not admitted. It also comes to the conclusion that Ex.D1 to D11 is totally different from the issue involved in the present case with regard to the subject matter of the cheque. Thus, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30021 CRL.RP No. 599 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both

¶38

the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶39

The counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the defence which was taken during the course of argument and would contend that when the amount was advanced to one Shashidhar, as a security, the subject matter of Cheque was given and the same was not appreciated by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. The very approach of both the Courts is erroneous. Thus, the order of both the Courts suffers from its legality and correctness.

¶40

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that both the Courts have taken note of evidence available on record particularly, the suggestion made to PW1 and also the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 and DW1 and not committed any error in convicting the accused. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court.

¶41

This Court considered the factual aspects of the

¶42

case as well as the defence set out in the cross-examination of

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30021 CRL.RP No. 599 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

PW1 and the suggestions made to PW1 which was categorically denied. The DW1 also examined and he has set out the defence that cheque was given to the complainant as a security when one Shashidhar has availed the loan. When such specific defence was taken, the said Shashidhar was not examined before the trial court except marking of the document of order sheet in C.C.No.1925/2023. If really the amount was advanced to the Shashidhar by the complainant, ought to have examined him to substantiate the same. On the other hand, in the crossexamination, categorically admitted the issuance of cheque and also the Ex.P2-endorsement and issuance of notice and no reply was given. When notice was served, could have set out the defence by giving the reply and the same was not done. Only an afterthought the said defence was taken and even such defence was taken, the same is not substantiated. When there is no admission on the part of PW1 with regard to said defence, it takes away the case of the revisal petitioner. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the petition. The scope of revision is also very limited i.e., only to examine the legality and correctness of the finding of both the Courts and the same is not found. Hence, it is not warranted to admit the revision.

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:30021 CRL.RP No. 599 of 2026

¶47