[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
K S Ganesh vs A Govindaraju on 12 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52967
CRL.RP No. 256 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 256 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
K S GANESH,
S/O SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O KALENAHALLI VILLAGE,
RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI - 573 133,
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
A GOVINDARAJU,
S/O LATE A Y ANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O AJJURU VILLAGE - 573 142,
DODDAMAGGE HOBLI,
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed (BY SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
by ANUSHA V
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
Location: High
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE
Court of
Karnataka LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HASSAN IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.142/2022 DATED 11.12.2023 CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOLENARASIPURA IN C.C.NO.35/2019
DATED 26.07.2022 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HONBLE DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52967
CRL.RP No. 256 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed by III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in
Crl.A.no.142/2022, confirming judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 26.09.2022 passed by Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, in C.C.no.35/2019, this
revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Vijayakumar S.C., learned counsel for petitioner
(accused) submitted that present revision is arising out of a
private complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC', for short) alleging that accused was
well known to complainant and had purchased 15 quintals and
76 Kgs of Arecanut from complainant at Rs.45,500/- per quintal
in presence of A.C. Manjunatha. It was stated that he had paid
Rs.5,000/- as advance and towards balance amount of
Rs.7,12,000/- issued cheque drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited,
Kalenahalli J.P. Branch, which when presented on 19.03.2019
returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient' and
thereafter, failed to repay amount within time even after
demand notice dated 02.04.2019 got issued by complainant
NC: 2025:KHC:52967
HC-KAR
was served on him, thereby committing offence punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI
Act', for short).
3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought
trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself and A.C.
Manjunatha as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P16.
On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same
and sought to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, his
statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded.
4. Thereafter, accused deposed as DW.1 and got
marked Exhibits-D1 to D5. It was submitted, though accused
had setup several defences and substantiated same in cross-
examination of complainant as well as in defence evidence,
without consideration of same, trial Court passed impugned
judgment convicting accused. Even appeal filed thereagainst
was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this
revision petition.
5. It was submitted, impugned judgments suffered
from perversity and called for interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:52967
HC-KAR
6. On other hand, Sri Rajaram Sooryambail, learned
counsel for respondent submitted, sole ground of challenge is
that complainant though claimed that accused had purchased
15 quintals 76 Kgs of arecanut grown in his lands and accused
was due to of Rs.Rs.7,12,000/-towards same and had issued
cheque -Ex.P.9 - Record of rights did not indicate cultivation of
arecanut. While Ex.P.6 in respect of very same land showed
yield as 30 quintals would be contrary. Same was not noticed
by both Courts and therefore finding of both Courts suffer from
perversity and sought for dismissal of revision.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and records.
8. Perusal of deposition of complainant as PW1 as well
as exhibits got marked would indicate that complainant had
claimed that he had grown arecanut and same was sold to
accused in presence of one AC Manjunath, who is also
examined as PW2. Thus, there is corroboration of deposition of
complainant's revision. Apart from above, it is seen Ex.P.16
certificate would indicate yield of 30 quintals of arecanut for
subsequent year and there is no cross-examination with regard
NC: 2025:KHC:52967
HC-KAR
to yield or with reference to exhibits marked. Therefore, no
case of perversity established.
Revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
