Karnataka High Court
K R Rajendra vs K H Srinivas on 2 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50149
CRL.RP No. 1379 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. 1379 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
K R RAJENDRA,
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/A 2ND CROSS,
NEAR AMBEDKAR PARK,
SIDDARTH NAGAR,
MADDUR TOWN - 571 422.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI SATISHCHANDRA R., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
K H SRINIVAS,
S/O HONNEGOWDA K,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/A 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
LEELAVATHI EXTENSION,
MADDUR TOWN ,
Digitally signed MADDUR - 571 422.
by ANUSHA V
...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
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.133/2022 ON
THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE MANDYA DATED 13.09.2023 AND BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF C.C.NO.613/2017 PASSED BY
COURT III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR
DATED 01.09.2018.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50149
CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 13.09.2023 passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.A.no.133/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence 01.09.2018 passed by III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, in C.C.no.613/2017, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Sathishchandra R., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that this 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 Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) alleging that for repayment of amount borrowed from complainant, accused had issued cheque bearing no.672416 dated 20.12.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Maddur Branch, which when presented for payment through complainant's Banker Shimsha Sahakara Bank -3- NC: 2025:KHC:50149 CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023 HC-KAR Niyamitha, Maddur Branch, same got dishonored with endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 07.01.2017. Despite service of demand notice got issued by complainant on 23.01.2017, same returned as 'unclaimed', accused 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 was examined as CW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which he denied. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Thereafter, trial Court passed impugned judgment, convicting accused but without providing adequate opportunity to accused. It was submitted, even appeal filed there against was dismissed without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances. Therefore, impugned judgment suffered from perversity and call for interference.
4. Respondent is served and unrepresented.
5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused impugned judgments and trial Court record. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50149 CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgments on sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice i.e. failure to grant adequate opportunity to cross-examine complainant.
7. Bare perusal of order sheet of proceedings before trial Court would reveal that on 19.01.2018, affidavit of complainant in lieu of examination-in-chief was accepted. It was also noted that accused had not filed application for recall of PW-1 for cross-examination and matter was set for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, on account of absence of accused, matter was adjourned on 07.03.2018 and 16.03.2018. On 06.04.2018, statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. And matter was posted for defence evidence on 07.05.2018. Even at this stage, matter was adjourned on account of absence of accused on 23.05.2018, by issuing non-bailable warrant and notice to surety. On 25.06.2018, they were re-issued. Thereafter only on 04.08.2018 defence evidence was taken as 'nil', and matter was posted for judgment after hearing -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50149 CRL.RP No. 1379 of 2023 HC-KAR arguments and noting that there was no recalling of complainant.
8. This would indicate that sufficient opportunity was granted to accused for cross-examination, but not utilized. Thus, contention that adequate opportunity was not granted would not sustain. Thus, deposition of complainant remained unchallenged.
9. While passing impugned judgments, trial Court as well as first appellate Court have referred to material on record, found compliance with statutory provisions and arrived at well reasoned findings. First appellate Court has addressed specific contention about lack of opportunity and by referring to record, rejected same.
10. 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.: 41