Karnataka High Court
Mahammadali S/O Allabax Bepari vs Bhimgouda S/O Baburao Patil on 10 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5373
CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100320 OF 2023
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMADALI S/O. ALLABAX BEPARI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. KASAI GALLI, NIPPANI,
TQ. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591237.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHIMGOUDA S/O. BABURAO PATIL,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. ANKALI ROAD, APPANGOUDA NAGAR,
SANKESHEWAR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591313.
VINAYAKA ...RESPONDENT
BV (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W.
VINAYAKA B V 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND
Date: 2026.04.10 ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE
14:58:25 +0530
ORDER DATED 04.05.2023 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. DIST. AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BELAGVI IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 39/2022 AND
ALSO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 09.11.2021 PASSED BY V J.M.F.C.
BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO. 1609/2021 WHICH HAS CONVICTED THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5373
CRL.RP No. 100320 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and
the material on record discloses that when the complainant was
examined as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P8,
he was not cross examined by the defence. Though reply notice
was given in terms of Ex.P8 setting the defence, the same is also
not proved by examining the revision petitioner before the Trial
Court and nothing is placed on record by the revision petitioner
to rebut the evidence of PW1. The case of PW1 is very clear that
he had lent an amount of ₹3,50,000/- by drawing the amount
from the bank to the tune of ₹4,00,000/-. The said averment is
also not contraverted by cross-examining PW1 and the revision
petitioner has also not let in rebuttal evidence against the case of
the complainant. There is no ground for admitting the revision
petition in the absence of any rebuttal evidence before the Court
and hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
YAN, CT:PA, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4
