Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/577/2026 of SRI PRADEEP KUMAR Vs MR K PRATHAP KUMAR on 3 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33167 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 577 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O DAMODAR NAIR, AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 577 OF 2026
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O DAMODAR NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT DURGA VIHAR, THEKKUMCHERRY,
PUTHAR POST, KOLLAM-691507.
KERALA STATE,
NOW AT BENGALURU.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA D P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. K PRATHAP KUMAR
S/O KRISHNAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.A 811, KRISHNAN SHELTON,
OPP HDFC BANK, DWARKA NAGAR,
KATTIGENAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560063.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ALWYN SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED
U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXXIV
A.C.M.M MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU 2.THE ORDER PASSED BY
73RD
ADDL.
CITY
CIVIL
AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE
IN
CRL.A.NO.25084/2024 BY UPHOLDING CONVICTION PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE XXXIV A.C.M.M MAYO HALL AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
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 is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 for condoning delay of 126 days in filing and I.A.No.2/2026 for suspension of sentence.
2. Having considered the defence which was taken by the accused before the trial Court, that his cheque was stolen, it is observed that he has not lodged any complaint for having lost the cheque or even made any effort though he was aware of the complainant was going to present the cheque. Despite this he has not taken any steps and the same is discussed in paragraph No.22 of the Judgment of the trial Court.
3. The defence was taken by him that the signed cheque leaves were kept in Sri Durga Pvt. Ltd. Office for some other business transactions, should have been stolen and misused by the complainant. However, in the cross-
HC-KAR
examination also, he categorically stated that he knew the cheque was stolen at the time of presentation of the cheque Ex.P2 before the bank but still he did not lodge any complaint for having lost the cheque.
4. In paragraph No.23 also, the trial Court taken note of the payment of amount and complainant had also borrowed the amount from different persons and gave the same to him and also PW2 deposed before the Court that in his presence only he has executed a promissory note as well as handed over the signed cheque including interest of Rs.32,91,390/- and in the cross-examination of PW2, nothing was elicited and the said fact is also taken note of by the trial Court.
5. The Only defence has taken that cheque was stolen, but not substantiated the same by placing any documentary evidence. The accused has not taken any action about loss of cheque and also misuse of the cheque by the complainant and there is no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
HC-KAR
6. Under these circumstances, I do not find any ground either for condonation of delay or the suspension of sentence. The trial Court has taken note of material available on record and the same is also confirmed by the Appellate Court in the appeal. On re-appreciation, the learned counsel appearing to the respondent also submitted that even though the conviction and sentence were challenged in Crl.A.No.25084/2024, the accused has not deposited the amount as directed by the Appellate Court.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, interlocutory applications are dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21