Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1063/2026 of MR H M CHANDRA SHEKAR Vs MR P NARESH BABU on 30 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010444292026 NC: 2026:KHC:39753 CRL.RP No. 1063 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1063 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR. H.M. CHANDRA SHEKAR, AGEFD ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1063 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. H.M. CHANDRA SHEKAR,
AGEFD ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT C/O H.N. MEGHANA BUILDING,
1ST FLOOR, IN FRONT OF KARNATAKA
BANK ATM, MINERVA BAKERY ROAD,
NEAR OM SHREE CIRCLE,
M.V.EXTENSION,
HOSAKOTE – 562114.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMESHA D.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MR. P. NARESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE P.P.NARASIMHULU,
R/AT FLAT NO.104,
GIRIDHANA MANOR APARTMENT,
2ND MAIN, NEAR MAITRI SCHOOL,
A NARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 016.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 08.05.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXIII ADDL.CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-74) AT BENGALURU IN
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
CRL.A NO.25340/2024 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXIV ADDL. CJM, MAYO
HALL UNIT AT BENGALURU IN CC NO.51273/2019 DATED
03.09.2024 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE
CASE.
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. The Trial Court taking into note of the case of the complainant and also the accused, in detail discussed the same. The Trial Court taken note that though the accused denied his signatures on Exs.P.1 to 3, he did not send the documents to the handwriting expert. The Trial Court taken note of that on examination chief affidavit in every page the signature of the accused was different. The Trial Court in paragraph No.22 taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 and particularly in paragraph No.23, taken note of admission of the accused in the cross-examination that amount was transferred to his account through RTGS and cheque. The accused denied the signature
HC-KAR
on the cheque as well as the signatures on Exs.P.1 to 3. On perusal of Exs.P.1 to 3, they are the receipts issued by the accused in favour of the complainant and all the three receipts are printed. On perusal of the signatures on Exs.P.1 to 3, plea, statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and deposition of the accused, all are not similar and are different and the same is also admitted by him. When such being the case, when the documents are also not sent to the hand writing expert, the Trial Court did not accept the case of the accused.
3. The Appellate Court also having considered both oral and documentary evidence, on re-appreciation, comes to the conclusion that the complainant has made out the case, particularly relying upon the cheques as well as the documents of Exs.P.1 to 3 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that the burden cast upon the accused to successfully rebut the presumption, which is raised by the complainant. There is no rebuttal evidence to accept the case of the accused and there is no any probable material to show that there is a preponderance of probabilities. The very contention of the accused is that there
HC-KAR
is no document with regard to the payment of Rs.9,50,000/-, but did not deny the cheque though he denies his signature in the cheque. Though he took the specific defence that there was no any transaction between the complainant and the accused, the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 is with regard to the receipt of the amount received by way of RTGS as well as cheques and there are no explanation on the part of the accused. When such being the case, I do not find any grounds to entertain the revision petition and the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness. This Court can exercise the revisional powers if there is any miscarriage in appreciation of evidence. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition.
4. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37