Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath Achar vs Sri Ashok on 2 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50116
CRL.RP No. 815 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 815 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATH ACHAR
S/O BASAVA ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2-5 JOGIBETTU,
KURKUNJE VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 572 101.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
SRI ASHOK
S/O LATE BALA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT HATTIKUDRU,
BASROOR VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V UDUPI DISTRICT - 572 101.
...RESPONDENT
Location: High
Court of (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
Karnataka
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI, SITTING AT
KUNDAPURA IN CRL.A.NO.513/2020 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 12.02.2020 IN
C.C.NO.1595/2015 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., KUNDAPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50116
CRL.RP No. 815 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 10.01.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), in Crl.A.no.513/2020 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, in C.C.no.1595/2015, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was against concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that for repayment of amount borrowed from complainant, accused had issued cheque bearing no.563922 on 20.10.2014 for Rs.58,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Neralakatte Branch, which when presented for collection returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on -3- NC: 2025:KHC:50116 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2023 HC-KAR 20.10.2014 and thereafter even when demand notice dated 31.10.2014 was served on accused on 03.11.2014, he had failed to repay amount within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant thereafter examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which he denied as false and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded.
4. It was submitted, trial Court passed impugned judgment, convicting accused without providing adequate opportunity of cross-examination of PW.1. It was submitted, even appeal filed there against was dismissed without proper re-appreciation. Therefore, impugned judgment suffered from perversity and called for interference.
5. Respondent is served, unrepresented.
6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused impugned judgments and trial Court record. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50116 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2023 HC-KAR
7. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments on sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice by failure to grant adequate opportunity to cross-examine complainant. Bare perusal of order sheet of proceedings before trial Court would reveal that matter was set for cross-examination of complainant on 20.11.2015 and on completion of examination-in-chief listed for cross-examination of PW1 on 25.11.2016 and again on 31.03.2017, and on 09.06.2017. Due to non-appearance of accused, non-bailable warrant was issued, same was executed and once again matter was set for cross-examination of PW.1 on 16.09.2017 and adjourned to 17.11.2017, 20.01.2018, 23.03.2018, 27.04.2018, when accused was absent once again leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant.
8. Thereafter, matter was listed on 26.10.2018, 11.01.2019 and 15.03.2019 subsequently once again on account of absence non-bailable warrant was issued, presence of accused secured and cross-examination taken as 'nil'. Thereafter even statement of accused under Section 313 of CrPC recorded. This would indicate that sufficient opportunity -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50116 CRL.RP No. 815 of 2023 HC-KAR was granted to accused for cross-examination, but not utilized. Even application for recalling of PW.1 is not filed. Thus, contention that adequate opportunity was not granted would not sustain. It is seen that assertions of complainant remain uncontroverted.
9. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court as well as Appellate Court have referred to material on record, found compliance with statutory provisions and they have arrived at findings about commission of offence by assigning proper reasons. Thus, no case of perversity in findings nor violation of any statutory provisions is established, revision petition is without merit and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37