Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/784/2026 of B. C. DINESH Vs S. M. RAVI on 30 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:32844 CRL.RP No. 784 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 784 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. B. C. DINESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF CEMENT BRICK FACTORY,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 784 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
B. C. DINESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF CEMENT
BRICK FACTORY,
BEERUVALLI VILLAGE,
AKKIHEBBALU HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-01.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
S. M. RAVI
S/O LATE S.M.MOGANNA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT KUVEMPUNAGARA,
SADAGONAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MANDYA DISTRICT-01
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.02.2026
PASSED
BY
THE
III
ADDL.DISTRICT
AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA IN
CRL.A
NO.5019/2024 AND IN CC NO.461/2019 DATED
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
30.12.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT KRISHNARAJPET AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.
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.
2. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent.
3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court while invoking Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short) are that the accused and complainant are friends and known to each other. On 21.09.2019, accused had approached the complainant and requested for loan of Rs.75,000/- for the purpose of investing in the brick factory and agreed to return the amount within two months. The complainant believing the words of accused lent Rs.75,000/- to the accused. The accused in return issued a Cheque dated 20.11.2017.
HC-KAR
After two months, the complainant presented the Cheque for encashment and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 15.12.2017. Inspite of acknowledging the notice, the accused never turned up to repay the amount. Having no other alternative, the complainant filed the complaint. The cognizance was taken, accused was secured and he did plead guilty and claims trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and 6 documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P6. Accused is also examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf. By considering both oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentence the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The said order was challenged by the revision petitioner before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5019/2024 and the appellate Court also re-appreciated the evidence on record
HC-KAR
and confirms the order of the trial Court. Hence, the revision petitioner is before this Court in the present revision.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that both the Courts erred in considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and both the Courts failed to appreciate the fact that the subject matter of the Cheque was given to one Simon for security for the purchase of bricks and it was misused by the respondent. Further, it is contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that since the issuance of Cheque is admitted, there is a legally enforceable debt but the case on hand is that it is the specific contention of the revision petitioner that the subject matter of the Cheque is issued to one Simon and not to the respondent. When that being the case, there is no legally enforceable debt on the part of revision petitioner to the complainant and even failed to appreciate the fact that whether the complainant has
HC-KAR
financial capacity to lend loan to the accused and matter requires consideration by this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also considering the reasoning of trial Court in paragraph No.21 wherein it is categorically stated that the accused himself admits to the fact that he had financial transaction with one Simon and issued a blank Cheque to the said Simon. But, in his examination, he denies that he has not borrowed any loan from the complainant. To substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record and there is no rebuttal evidence by the accused except the defence that he has issued the Cheque to one Simon and not to the respondent. When the liability is acknowledged and issuance of Cheque is not disputed so also the same is not rebutted, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. The scope of revision is very limited i.e., only to examine the legality and correctness of the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the same is not warranted in the
HC-KAR
case on hand since the Cheque is issued towards the liability. Therefore, no ground is made out to admit the revision and even there is no miscarriage of justice in considering the material on record by both the Courts. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54