Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/398/2026 of SRI. R. SREEDHAR Vs M/S. PADMASHALI CREDIT SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED on 3 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33362 CRL.RP No. 398 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. 398 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R. SREEDHAR S/O LATE B RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, EX-MANAGING
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. 398 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. R. SREEDHAR
S/O LATE B RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
BANK LTD., TIPPUSULTHAN PALACE
ROAD FORT, BENGALURU-560 018.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SURESHA N,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. PADMASHALI CREDIT SOUHARDA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 10, 1ST FLOOR
SOUDHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SIRSI ROAD
CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018.
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRADEEP NAIK K,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438
R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO
SET
ASIDE
THE
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.
ORDER
DTD 05.02.2026 IN CRL.A.NO.247/2025 ON THE FILE OF LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-53) IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CC.NO.9567/2023 DTD 15.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXVI ACJM, AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission.
2. Though this matter was called twice, i.e. in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session, there is no representation on behalf of revision petitioner.
3. On 23.06.2026, the revision petitioner made a submission that he is going to settle the matter within a week and the respondent counsel would submit that even though the matter was referred to the mediation, the revision petitioner did not turn up.
4. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration and also the judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to pay an amount of Rs.34,33,700/- and even having perused the
HC-KAR
records also, no defence evidence was led before the trial Court. However, there is no rebuttal evidence and hence the trial Court taking into material on record in paragraph No.19, considered both oral and documentary evidence that nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1. Therefore, comes to the conclusion that there was no any rebuttal evidence and also made an observation that complainant and accused along with one Srinivas came forward for settlement and issued three cheques for an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- by this accused. In spite of the same, it is not complied and the notice was issued and the same was served on accused and no reply was given so also not led any defence evidence and convicted and sentence the accused. The appellate Court also on re- appreciation of material available on record, accepted the reasoning of the trial Court in detail, taking note of that nothing is found in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and also documents at Ex.P1 to P11 by stating that the complainant has complied with all the ingredients of
HC-KAR
Section 138 of N.I.Act and in 313 statement also, except total denial, nothing is found regarding rebuttal evidence and concurrence is same. When such being the case, where finding was given based on the material by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court so also the revision petitioner also not pursuing the matter before this Court instead of sufficient opportunity is given. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition as there is no defence evidence and also no effective cross- examination. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42