- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100006 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI HANUMANT S/O. KRISHNA PATIL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. NEAR KLE CANCER HOSPITAL, ONE CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR , ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590003. … PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI S.M.ASSOCIATIONS R/P BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI BSALINGAPPA B.BANDAI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. VAIBHAV NAGAR, NEAR SHANTESH MOTORS, BELAGAVI-590001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI MADANGOUDA N.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.290/2019 DATED ON 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CC NO.461/2018 DATED 24.07.2019 PASSED BY THE VIII JMFC BELAGAVI, OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.21 14:31:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed by XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Appeal no.290/2019 and judgment and order dated 24.07.2019 passed by VIII JMFC, Belagavi in CC.no.461/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Mahantesh S.Hiremath, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent had filed private complaint in CC.no.461/2018 before VIII JMFC Court, Belagavi alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’ for short) by petitioner herein. In complaint it was stated that complainant was in business of supplying building materials and from December, 2017 onwards, petitioner purchased building materials worth a total of Rs.3,51,612/- and made part payment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 13th December, 2017. At that time, he had agreed to clear balance amount within six months. When he failed and complainant approached him, petitioner had issued two cheques bearing no.40821 and 40822 both dated 04.04.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Khade Bazaar, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 Belgaum for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. When cheques were presented for collection on 24.04.2018, respondent received intimation on same day about their dishonor on ground of insufficient funds. Within 15 days thereafter i.e. on 09.15.2018, complainant got issued legal notice calling upon petitioner to pay cheque amount, however, notices returned unclaimed on 17.05.2018. As there was no repayment, complaint was filed on 02.06.2018. 3. Trial Judge framed following points for consideration: “ೕಲಂಡ ಸಂಗ ಗ ಂದ ಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳು ನನ ಪಗಣ ಬಂರುತ. (i). ಆ ೂೕ"ತನು #ಾನೂ%ಾತ&ಕ'ಾ( )ಾವ ಸ+ೕ#ಾದ ಹಣ#ಾ( ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ %ಾಂಕ : 04.04.2018 ರಂದು ತ-ಾ ರೂ. 1,00,000/- ಗ .ಕುಗಳ ಸಂ/0 : 040821 ಮತು 040822 %ಾ2ಾ 3ಾ0ಂ4, ಖ6 ಬ7ಾರ, +ಳ8ಾ9ಯ ಎರಡು .ಕಗಳನು <ೕ=ದು>, ಸದ .ಕಗಳನು ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ಯು ತನ 3ಾ0ಂ?ನ@A ನಗೕಕರಣ#ಾ( Bಾಜರುಪ=DEಾಗ, ತ-ಾ ಎರಡು .ಕುಗಳು %ಾಂಕ 24.04.2018 ರಂದು ಆ ೂೕ"ಯ FಾGಯ@A 'ಾಕಷು ಾಕಷು ಾಕಷು ಾಕಷು ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಇರುವ ಲ ಇರುವ ಲ ಇರುವ ಲ ಇರುವ ಲ ' ಎಂಬ ಎರಡು HಂಬರಹIೂಂ ಅ%ಾಧರಣೂಂ=ದು>, ಈ ಬK %ಾಂಕ 09.05.2018 ರಂದು ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ ಆ ೂೕ" @Lತ ೂೕMಸನು <ೕ=, ಎರಡು .ಕುಗಳ@A ಒಳೂಂ=ರುವ ಹಣವನು ೂೕMಸು 7ಾOಾದ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 15 ನಗಳ@A )ಾವ ಸುವಂG Dದ>ರೂ, ಆ ೂೕ"ಯು .ಕುಗಳ ಹಣವನು ೕರುವ PಾಡIೕ ಇರುವRದಂದ ªÀUÁðವSಯ @Lತ ಪತTಗಳ ಅU<ಯಮ ಕಲಂ 138 ರ ಅ=ಯ@A ಆ ೂೕ"ಯು ²PÁëºÀð'ಾದ ಅಪ2ಾಧ Pಾ=ರುVಾ ಎಂಬುದನು ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ಯು ರುಜು'ಾತು ಪ=ಸುವ ? (ii). Pಾಡುವ ಆIೕಶ ಏನು ?” 4. Trial Judge answered point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 by convicting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and ordering payment of fine amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and in case of failure to pay fine amount, petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 5. It was submitted judgment passed by trial Court was contrary to law, without taking note of defences raised by petitioner that there were no transactions with complainant and complainant had failed to produce accounts statement. Aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl.Appeal no.290/2019 wherein following points were framed for consideration: “1) Whether the appellant shows that the finding of the trial court is perverse, capricious and illegal requiring interference in the hands of this court? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 2) What order?” 6. Without proper appreciation of contentions, Appellate Judge proceeded to dismiss appeal. Aggrieved to this, revision petition was filed. 7. It was submitted, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan reported in 2010 (11) SCC 441 had held it was not necessary for accused to enter into witness box and lead evidence to rebut presumption available under Section 139 of N.I. Act and that accused would be entitled to rebut presumption based on material on record. 8. It was further submitted, when specific defence of petitioner was disputing transaction, mere production of invoices without account statement would be sufficient to rebut presumption. It was further submitted, there were material alterations and Exs.P1 and P2 appeared to have been signed in different inks raising bonafide doubt. Such being case, both Courts erred in convicting petitioner and holding him liable to pay fine amount. It was further submitted, since complaint was filed within 15 days from date of notice, there was violation of Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, impugned judgments of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 conviction as well as orders of sentence were liable to be set- aside. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition. 9. On other hand, Sri Madangouda N.Patil, learned counsel for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, contrary to contentions denying transaction, during course of cross-examination, suggestions made and admissions elicited were to effect that complainant had agreed to return cheques on payment of amount into account, therefore, cheques were given as security and not towards discharge of debt. Thus, issuance of cheques were admitted and production of invoices along with GST returns would suffice. Hence, there was no scope for interference. 10. Heard learned counsel and perused record. 11. This revision petition is under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, scope of interference against concurrent findings is held to be extremely limited and normally only on questions of law and not findings of fact. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 12. While passing impugned judgment, both Courts have taken note of defence set up by petitioner that issuance of cheques were as security and not towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Both Courts have taken note of same as admission about due execution and issuance of cheques attracting presumption. 13. Insofar as contention that signatures on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were in different inks, have been duly examined and not accepted on ground that mere change in ink would not raise doubt. And as petitioner had suggested that he had only transacted with complainant for purchase of 8 mm sheets whereas, he was supplied with 6 mm sheets, would admit transaction between complainant and petitioner. 14. In light of above, since complainant produced invoices for supply of material to petitioner, production of account statement would not be necessary since account statement would be only an abstract of individual invoices. Moreover complainant had produced Form GSTR-3B (tax return), wherein transactions in Ex.P.11 series between parties are referred. Tax return would also be a document maintained - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 in normal course of business and Tax invoices and GST returns cannot be stated to be either insufficient or unacceptable evidence. Therefore finding of trial Court availing presumption in favour of cheques would not suffer from perversity, providing scope for interference. 15. Insofar as specific contention that complaint was filed before expiry of 15 days period from date of receipt of Exs.P.1 and 2-cheques, it is seen Exs.P.8 and 9, legal notices were issued to petitioner at two different addresses. While Ex.P.8 returned with postal share as refused, Ex.P.9 returned unclaimed. Date of return is 17.05.2018 and complaint was registered on 02.06.2018 and cognizance taken on same day. 16. Though contention of learned counsel for petitioner about 15 days period for making payment after from date of receipt of legal notice would be mandatory, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey and another reported in 2014 (10) SCC 713 reiterated in Gajanand Burange Vs. Laxmi Chand Goyal, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1711. In instant case, date - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 CRL.RP No. 100006 of 2022 of filing of complaint i.e., 02.06.2018 would be 17th day. Therefore even said contention would not avail to petitioner. 17. In view of above, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH/EM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42