Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/926/2022 of SRI. M.S. SATHYANARAYANA Vs SRI. RUDRAMURTHY. V on 27 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010290132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38624 CRL.RP No. 926 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.926 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.S. SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.926 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. M.S. SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. S.N. SUBBAKRISHNA,
R/AT NO.2110, DEPOT 180,
BEML TRUCK DIVISION,
BELAVADI POST,
MYSURU-573 113.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. RUDRAMURTHY V.,
S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA M.G.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.712, 4TH CROSS,
RAHAMANIYA STREET,
CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570010.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.42/2021 DATED 28.03.2022
ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
DATED 07.11.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.239/2020 ON THE FILE
OF THE V JMFC, MYSURU AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BY
ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
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 and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The accused took the defence before the Trial Court that the cheque was given as security to one Vijayalakshmi. But a categorical finding is given by the Trial Court in paragraph No.41 that the said Vijayalakshmi also filed a case against both D.W.1 and D.W.2, who are the husband and wife and further admission was taken note of that they were in judicial custody in connection with the said case and hence, the defence taken by the accused in the case on hand is not believable. The Trial Court in paragraph No.44 comes to the conclusion that the accused has admitted Ex.P.1 cheque and
HC-KAR
signature on Ex.P.1, but disputed that the said cheque was given to Vijayalakshmi and not to the complainant. In view of the admission on the part of D.W.1 and D.W.2, the defence which was taken by the accused was not substantiated and except leading defence evidence by examining D.W.1 and D.W.2, no documents are placed before the Court that there was a transaction between Vijayalakshmi and the complainant. The cheque is admitted and signature is admitted and the defence was not substantiated by leading any cogent evidence. There is no any probable defence to rebut the presumption of law available in favour of the complainant and the same is taken note of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
3. The other contention was taken that notice was not served. But in the cross-examination, D.W.1 has categorically admitted that Ex.P.5 acknowledgment is taken by his office and the notice was served in the office itself and no reply was given. When such being the case, the very defence is not substantiated and hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and the findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness.
HC-KAR
4. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21