Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/468/2026 of LANKESH L C Vs SLV BOOKS AGENCIES on 3 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33215 CRL.RP No. 468 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.468 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. LANKESH L.C., S/O. LATE L.K.CHANDRU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BAI PASS ROAD,
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.468 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
LANKESH L.C.,
S/O. LATE L.K.CHANDRU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
BAI PASS ROAD, BILIKERE
HUNSURU THALLUKU
MYSURU-571 105.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRISHNA REDDY A., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SLV BOOKS AGENCIES
REP. BY KALARASEGOWDA
S/O. KEMPARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.1053,
VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE
MYSURU-570 017,
OFFICE AT NO.29/1, HINKAL
BOGADHI RING ROAD
NEXT TO PC STEEL
MYSURU-570 017.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR J., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
DATED 23.04.2025 IN CC NO.6901/2022 PASSED BY THE V
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MYSURU AND
CONFIRMING APPEAL IN CRL.A NO.209/2025 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU
DATED 03.02.2026 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE
ABOVE CASE.
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. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that complainant is a proprietary firm dealing in wholesale leading publications books like CBSC, ICSC, NCERT and State Board School and College Books. The accused have been dealing with complainant for a long time and used to purchase books from the complainant on cash basis. Out of the long-standing business connection, the accused requested the complainant to supply books on credit basis. Having faith in accused, the complainant acceded to his request and supplied
HC-KAR
books worth Rs.6,91,367/-. When the complainant repeated demand for payment of the said amount, the accused has issued the Cheque for Rs.4,32,167/-. When the Cheque was presented, the same returned with an endorsement ‘drawers signature differs’. Hence, legal notice was issued and the same was served on the accused on 16.09.2022. But, he did not comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken.
3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P26 and accused also got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D10.
4. The Trial Court having considered the documentary evidence placed before the Court Exs.P1 to P26 i.e., ledger extracts, bills, bank account statements, bills and vouchers, ledger extract which is in respect of purchase of the books, notice was issued and the same was served on the accused in terms of Ex.P6. But, the accused has not given any reply and even the Trial Court has taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1 and discussed in detail with regard to issuance of Cheque
HC-KAR
as well as registration of case against him. In paragraph Nos.32 to 38 taken note of material available on record and also the presumption in paragraph No.42 and convicted and sentenced the accused.
5. The order of the Trial Court is challenged before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also on re- appreciation of evidence, taken note of cross-examination of D.W.1 in paragraph No.24 and also in paragraph No.25 and even extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 in paragraph No.26 and on re-appraising both oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
6. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the accused. P.W.1 admits that Ex.P1-authorization letter to prosecute the instant case was delegated to Diwakar Dasa which cannot be sub-delegated without proper resolution which clearly shows that the respondent/complainant do not have locus-standi to file the complaint. The counsel also would contend that Section 141 of
HC-KAR
N.I. Act is also not complied with regard to the merits of the case.
7. Having taken note of the fact that Cheque was issued by accused in the name of Lankesh L., proceedings was initiated and also he categorically admits that he has issued the Cheque and Cheque belongs to him only and also with regard to misusing of Cheque, he has not given any complaint and also he did not question with the Secretary with regard to the Cheque is concerned. When the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court taken note of evidence and material available on the record, particularly discussed in paragraph Nos.32 to 38 and the same is re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court, the contention raised before this Court by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted and the question of invoking Section 141 does not arise in view of admitting issuance of Cheque in the name of accused and with regard to the locus-standi is concerned, the said ground cannot be urged before this Court and the order of both the Courts not suffers from its legality and correctness. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition.
HC-KAR
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45