Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1073/2026 of SRI. BASAVARAJU Vs SRI. T. D. MURTHY on 14 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:35823 CRL.RP No. 1073 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1073 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJU, S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT 1ST
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1073 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. BASAVARAJU,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT 1ST CROSS,
SUBHASHNAGAR,
MANDYA CITY-571401.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJU H.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. T.D. MURTHY,
S/O LATE DESIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O KERETHONNURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 11.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL.
DISTRICT
AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE,
MANDYA
IN
CRL.A
NO.93/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.07.2023
PASSED
BY
THE
LEARNED
JMFC-II,
MANDYA
IN
CC
NO.280/2021
CONVICTING
THE
PETITIONER
FOR
THE
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE
UNDER
SECTION
OF
THE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881, AND SENTENCING HIM
TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX
MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.3,90,000/- AND IN
DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS
OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.3,80,000/- WAS DIRECTED TO
BE PAID TO THE COMPLAINANT AS COMPENSATION VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.
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 factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused and the complainant were having close acquaintance and on 22.07.2017, the accused borrowed loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant for his legal necessity and promised to repay the same within five months. Since the accused failed to pay the said amount within the agreed period, the complainant approached the accused and demanded to repay the loan amount. The accused kept on postponing the same on one or the other pretext and ultimately on 26.12.2017, the accused issued a cheque towards
HC-KAR
discharge of his legally recoverable debt. On presentation of the said cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused and the same was served. Inspite of service of notice, neither the accused replied to the notice nor paid the loan amount. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. The accused also examined himself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 categorically admitted that he had taken the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and cheque is also in respect of the said transaction. Though he denied the issuance of cheque, but admits the receipt of the amount and also the signature found on Ex.P.1 cheque. The Trial Court having taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1, which is extracted in paragraph No.18, taken note of each of the defence of the accused and answered the same. The Appellate Court also re-
HC-KAR
appreciated the evidence on record and when there was a categorical admission on the part of D.W.1 for having received the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and cheque was given, confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
4. The very contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the defence of the accused and the same cannot be accepted. When there is a categorical admission on the part of D.W.1 for having received the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and cheque was issued, the question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47