Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/413/2026 of SRI SALMAN BAIG Vs SRI FAYAZ AHMED on 24 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010175072026 NC: 2026:KHC:38257 CRL.RP No. 413 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.413 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SALMAN BAIG, S/O SAMEULLA BAIG, AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.413 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. SALMAN BAIG,
S/O SAMEULLA BAIG,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT D.NO.157/MD, 1457
9TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA BADAVANE,
MYSURU-570019.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED AMEER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. FAYAZ AHMED,
S/O NAZER AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.222, 7TH CROSS,
AZEEZ SUTI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR JABAR HALL,
SHANTHINAGARA,
MYSURU-570019.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO ADMIT
THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.09.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.428/2024 PASSED BY THE III
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AND TO SET
ASIDE
THE
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.
JUDGMENT
DATED 27.11.2024 IN
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
C.C.NO.7373/2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED OF THE OFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for condonation of delay of 70 days in filing the petition and I.A.No.2/2026 for suspension of sentence and bail.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that, both the complainant and the accused are known to each other from several years. The accused approached the complainant and requested for financial assistance for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to meet his immediate legal necessities i.e., to discharge some hand loan and household expenses and for business purpose. The complainant lent the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the month of August 2019 and the accused agreed that he will repay the said
HC-KAR
loan amount within 3 to 4 months. But he did not repay the same. On insistence, the accused has issued the cheque dated 02.12.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/-. The said cheque was presented and the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” vide memo dated 03.12.2019. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice and the same was not returned to the complainant and as such he gave a complaint to the concerned post office on 13.01.2020 and on the same day they gave an endorsement, which stated that item delivery confirmed on 28.12.2019. But the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor given any reply. Hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claimed the trial.
3. The complainant in order to substantiate his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 5. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and also led the evidence by examining himself as D.W.1, but not produced any document. The first contention taken by the accused before the Trial Court is that notice was not served on him. But the complainant relied upon the postal track
HC-KAR
consignment Ex.P.5. The Trial Court in paragraph No.16 taken note of that when D.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination, he categorically admits that he was residing in the very same address and Ex.P.3 also contains the very same address and both one and the same. The Trial Court also taken note of that the summons was issued to the very same address, but he had refused to receive the summons and hence, comes to the conclusion that the notice was served and no reply was given by the accused.
4. The other contention of the accused is that the cheque was given in favour of one Riyaz and the same has been misused by the complainant. Though he says that the cheque was misused, the same is not substantiated by leading any contra evidence against the complainant. The very contention that the cheque was issued for the transaction between himself and Riyaz is not substantiated and there is no any rebuttal evidence as against the complainant. The cheque is admitted and signature is also admitted and when the notice was issued, the same was served, but he has not given any reply stating the very defence that the cheque was given to
HC-KAR
Riyaz. All these materials were taken note of by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the accused has not substantiated his defence. When such reasoning is given, I do not find any grounds to entertain the delay application as well as suspension of sentence. Hence, I.A.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 are dismissed. Consequently, the criminal revision petition is also dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13