Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/139/2026 of CHIKKAMALLA Vs NAGESH on 6 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33539 CRL.RP No. 139 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.139 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. CHIKKAMALLA S/O LATE CHIKKAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O 7TH CROSS
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:33539
CRL.RP No. 139 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.139 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
CHIKKAMALLA
S/O LATE CHIKKAMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O 7TH CROSS
SIDDARTHANAGAR
MALAVALLI TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMA RAMACHANDRA IYER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
NAGESH
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O KYATHEGOWDANADODDI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED
U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
20.07.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI IN CC NO.224/2016 AND THE JUDGMENT ORDER
DATED 30.07.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.116/2022
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED
AGAINST HIM U/S 138 OF N.I ACT 1881.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:33539
CRL.RP No. 139 of 2026
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 heard earlier and learned counsel for the petitioner sought time. Today also, learned counsel for the petitioner again seeks time.
2. This Court perused the material on record and in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of judgment of the Trial Court, it is seen that the accused even not led any rebuttal evidence and issuance of the Cheque is not disputed and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court. When there is no rebuttal evidence before the Court and when there is a presumption, the accused ought to have rebutted the same by placing on record preponderance of probabilities, the same is not done by the petitioner. When such being the case, no grounds to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14