[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2025:KHC:50116
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:50116
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
NC: 2025:KHC:50116
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
