Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1118/2026 of B. JAYAKUMAR Vs G.R. SHIVANNA on 7 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010469802026 NC: 2026:KHC:41737 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1118 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. B. JAYAKUMAR, S/O BHOJAPPA N.M., AGED ABOUT 63
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1118 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
B. JAYAKUMAR,
S/O BHOJAPPA N.M.,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT R.S. BHOJAPPA CAMP POST,
SOGANE NIDIGE,
SHIVAMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. TASMIN A., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANJINAPPA BARKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
G.R. SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT D.NO.2031,
DATTAGALLI 3RD STAGE,
KANAKADASANAGAR,
MYSURU.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 (FILED
U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 13.11.2024 IN C.C.NO.137/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT K.R.NAGAR AND THE
ORDER OF CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.5136/2024 BY THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR DATED
10.06.2026 AND DIRECT THE ACQUITTAL OF THE PETITIONER
BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.11.2022 and agreed to repay the same within one month and issued the cheque dated 29.12.2022. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “account closed”. Inspite of notice was served on the accused, the accused did not comply with the demand and notice issued was also returned with an endorsement “addressee left without instructions”. When the accused was summoned and secured, he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. The only defence which was taken
HC-KAR
by the accused entering into the witness box is that he had borrowed the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from one Prasad and he repaid the same. But in order to substantiate that there was a transaction between the accused and Prasad and repaid the amount, nothing is placed before the Court and even not examined the said Prasad before the Court. If really he had repaid the amount, he would have examined the said Prasad before the Court and the same was not done and hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion having considered the material on record, particularly in paragraph No.23 that the said Prasad was not examined and also in order to prove the misusing of the cheque by the complainant and filing of false case, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1.
3. With regard to the capacity of the complainant to pay the amount, defence was also taken and the same is discussed in paragraph No.26. His only defence is that he had availed the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from one Prasad and not from the complainant. When the borrowing of the money is accepted from Prasad and not from the complainant, the same is not substantiated and there is no explanation on the part of the
HC-KAR
accused how the cheque went to the hands of the complainant, if there was no such transaction. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court, I do not find any reasons to entertain this revision petition. The defence that the cheque was given to Prasad is not substantiated and there is no any rebuttal evidence before the Court. The same is considered by the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record. The order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness and hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21