HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 693 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 694 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP No. 693/2018 BETWEEN:

MR S SUBRAMANYA BHAT, S/O VASUDEVA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O AGALI KOUSE, NADA VILLAGE, LAILA POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 214.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI K.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR NAGARAJ TANTHRI, S/O KESHAVA TANTHRI, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Location: High Court of R/AT KRITHIKA HOUSE, Karnataka MAIN ROAD, BAJPE, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. - 574 214.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TASMIN A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, PUTTUR, D.K., DATED 28.11.2012, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.135/2011,AND CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE HC-KAR MATTER BACK TO THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT TO PASS AN ORDER ON MERITS.

IN CRL.RP NO. 694/2018 BETWEEN:

KESHAVA HEBBAR, S/O ANANDA HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O AGALI KOUSE, NADA VILLAGE, LAILA POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 214.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASAD K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. NAGARAJ TANTHRI, S/O KESHAVA TANTHRI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KIRTHIKA HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, BAJPE, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K-574 214.

...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TASMIN A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, PUTTUR, D.K., DATED 28.11.2012, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.134/2011, VIDE ANNEXURE D AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT TO PASS AN ORDER ON MERITS.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Challenging order dated 28.11.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Puttur, D.K., ('Appellate Court' for short), in Crl.A.no.135/2011 and Crl.A.no.134/2011, these revision petitions are filed.

2. Sri K.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Archana Murthy, advocate for petitioner submitted that these revision petitions were by complainants in C.C.no.191/2004 and C.C.no.1056/2003 on file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belthangady, D.K., ('Trial Court', for short). It was submitted, private complaints were filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) against respondent/accused alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short) as well as under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC', for short).

3. It was submitted, same ended in judgments dated

26.07.2011 convicting accused. Said judgments was challenged by accused in Crl.A.no.135/2011 and Crl.A.no.134/2011 which were disposed of on 28.11.2012 by Appellate Court by setting HC-KAR aside impugned judgment and remitting matter back to Trial Court for de novo trial in light of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nitinbhai Saevanthilal Shah and Anr. v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and Anr., reported in 2011 SAR (Criminal) 808, reiterated in Sankar Sarkar v.

Subahraj and Anr., reported in CDJ 2012 SC 234

4. Assailing same, it was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mehsana Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Shreeji Cab Company and Ors., reported in 2014 (13) SCC 619, had clarified that ratio in Nitinbhai Saevanthilal Shah's case would apply only in case of summary trial by Magistrate and would not apply where evidence was recorded in full and not in summary manner. It was submitted, said proposition reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of J.V. Baharuni and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 2014 (10) SCC 494. In view of above, it was submitted that order of remand passed by Appellat