- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5943 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1014 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P.S. SATISH, S/O. SHASHI P.S., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUYYA VILLAGE AND POST, SIDDAPUR, VIRAJAPET, KODAGU – 571 218. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K.S.UTTAIAH, S/O. KECHETTIRA SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KADAGADAL VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT–571 218. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. KRISHNA MOORTHY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ANDORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 24.02.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.2224/2013 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.32/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FROM THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5943 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2016 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the Trial Court having considered the evidence of the complainant/respondent, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for six months simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the State as well as to pay the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the complainant. 3. The same was challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court on re-assessing the material available on record, dismissed the appeal and hence the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent for felling and cutting the trees and there was no any road to transport the same and hence the petitioner could not transport the same. The learned counsel admits that he had obtained the felling order and cut the trees, but contend - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5943 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2016 that as there was no road, he could not transport the same. The learned counsel contend that the Trial Court sentenced to imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay the compensation and fine and the same is not correct and the order suffers from its legality and correctness and hence this Court has to interfere with the sentence of the Trial Court. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the admission given by P.W.1 in the cross-examination. P.W.1 categorically admits that the liability to pay Ex.P.1 cheque is only after lifting of first load of timber and when the same was not lifted, the question of payment does not arise. The learned counsel contend that there is an admission that in Ex.P.1 signature and handwriting are different. P.W.1 has admitted that in order to go to his coffee plantation, there is no any road and there is only a pathway and also admits that in terms of Ex.P.6 he has undertaken to provide the road. Inspite of it, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of D.W.1. D.W.1 categorically admitted that first load of timber was lifted. When such admission was given, the question of no road to lift - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5943 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2016 the timber cannot be accepted. He categorically admits that Ex.P.1 cheque was given after lifting of first load. Hence, it does not require any interference and the very argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The learned counsel contend that the Trial Court only ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and the same also does not require interference. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether both the Courts committed an error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner and whether the same requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point (i): 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that there was an agreement between the parties in terms of Ex.P.6 to cut and remove the trees in the coffee plantation. It is not in dispute that the timber was cut - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5943 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2016 after obtaining the felling order from the concerned department. It is also not in dispute that the cheque Ex.P.1 was issued. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the timber was not transported since there was no road. But there was an admission that Ex.P.1 cheque was given after lifting of first load of timber. When such admission was given, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court convicted and sentenced for imprisonment as well as directed to pay the compensation. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the case, the very object of bringing amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act is for the speedy recovery of the amount, in case any cheque is bounced, but now it takes decades. In the case on hand, C.C. was registered in 2013 and now we are in 2025 and more than a decade has been elapsed. The Court has to take note of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent and there is an admission that entire load was not lifted. But the fact is that the timber was cut and removed and there is an admission with regard to lifting of first load. When such being the case, it is appropriate to modify the order of the Trial Court with regard to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5943 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2016 punishment is concerned. This Court can exercise the discretion, if the petitioner makes the payment in favour of the respondent within a period of four weeks from today and no need to undergo imprisonment. If the petitioner fails to make the payment within four weeks from today, the order of the Trial Court will prevail. The petitioner is directed to make the payment in favour of the respondent within four weeks from today, without fail. If the petitioner fails to make the payment, then he will not enure the benefit of this order and he has to undergo simple imprisonment of six months as well as to make the payment in favour of the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for both the parties submit that some payments are made when order was passed by the Appellate Court and this Court. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to release the amount, which is in deposit before the Trial Court, in favour of the respondent, on proper identification. 10. With the above observations, the criminal revision petition is disposed of Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73