[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2025:KHC:50149
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:50149
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
NC: 2025:KHC:50149
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
