Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/193/2025 of SRI. SIDDARTHA S DAS Vs SAINT MILAGRIS CREDIT SOUHARDA CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED on 23 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010071142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38103 CRL.RP No. 193 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.193 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SIDDARTHA S. DAS, S/O SRINIVASA D, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.193 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. SIDDARTHA S. DAS,
S/O SRINIVASA D,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LBS NAGARA,
MELINAKURUVALLI,
THIRTHAHALLI-577432.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEPA B.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SAINT MILAGRIS CREDIT SOUHARDA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
THIRTHAHALLI BRANCH, AZAD ROAD,
THIRTHAHALLI-577432,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHWATH C.M., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 04.08.2023 MADE IN CC.NO.2340/2022
PASSED
BY
THE
PRL.
CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
JMFC
AT
THIRTHAHALLI AND ALSO JUDGEMENT DATED 05.12.2024
MADE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.147/2023 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE
SAID OFFENCES.
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. This criminal revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that, the accused had approached the complainant Society for the purpose of financial assistance of his business and other needs on 21.06.2021. The complainant believed the words of the accused and advanced a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as loan. One Vishak S.G. and Prakasha N were stood as guarantor of the loan obtained by the accused. The notice was issued and no reply was given and the accused also did not lead any defence evidence. But only suggestions
HC-KAR
were made to P.W.1. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 also, the accused has not denied the transaction with the complainant Society and also in the suggestion made to P.W.1, he categorically admits that earlier also he used to transact with the complainant. The same is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.12 and also cheque is not disputed and hence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in Criminal Appeal No.147/2023 and the Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of evidence, taken note of in paragraph No.25 that the accused not led any rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption and in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he categorically admitted the transaction. The cheque is not disputed and availment of loan is also not disputed and the very suggestion made to P.W.1 clearly discloses that there was a transaction. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. The judgment of both the Courts
HC-KAR
not suffers from its legality and correctness and hence, no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition and there is no any miscarriage of justice in the case on hand. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36