Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1302/2024 of DEVAMMA Vs BOREGOWDA on 8 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:34498 CRL.RP No. 1302 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1302 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. DEVAMMA W/O BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NAGARTHALLI VILLAGE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1302 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1.
DEVAMMA
W/O BASAVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NAGARTHALLI VILLAGE
RAYANAKERE POST
JAIPURA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570008.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
BOREGOWDA
S/O ANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT AALAPATNA VILLAGE
MALLIPATNA HOBLI
ARAKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573102.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED
U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT HASSAN, IN CRL. APPEAL NO.137/2021, DATED
08.01.2024 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUDU IN CC NO.307/2018 DATED
05.10.2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 was called in the morning, no representation. However, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared in the afternoon and made his submission.
2. The Trial Court has considered the defence of the accused and considering the same, in paragraph No.11(p) observed that with regard to Cheque was lost and also Cheque was stolen, complaint was given and the same was not produced before the Trial Court and no rebuttal evidence before the Trial Court with regard to the defence which was taken. Even the revision petitioner also not entered into the witness box and though the cross-examination of P.W.1 was made at length, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and Trial Court given the reasoning in paragraph No.11(p) as well as 11(q) and 11(r) that no rebuttal evidence before the Court.
HC-KAR
3. The First Appellate Court also having taken note of material available on record, re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15. No doubt in reply notice marked at Ex.P1, an allegation is made that Mangalamma made a theft of Cheque book of accused and she has fabricated the Cheque and accused has not signed any Cheque. But, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, nowhere such suggestion has been put to P.W.1 and the same is considered in paragraph No.15 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court. When such reasoned order is passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to consider the revision petition and unless the reasoning of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness, the revisional power cannot be exercised. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16