- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1748 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100008 OF 2023 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SHRI ARUN S/O. MAHABAL SHETTY, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS, R/O. PROPRIETOR: SHRINIVAS HOTEL, YARAGATTI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. … PETITIONER (BY SRI SANTOSH.B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI MARUTI S/O. NINGAPPA TIGADI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, ALSO AT C/O. SHRI. GOUDA, PLOT NO.13/55, SHIVANERI GALLI, SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590010. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.131/2022 DATED 17.10.2022, IN DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.519/2020 DATED 12.04.2022, PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C-VIII BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.31 15:25:26 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1748 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment / order dated 17.01.2022 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.131/2022 confirming judgment / order dated 12.04.2022 passed by JMFC-VIII, Belagavi in C.C.no.519/2020, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, revision petition was filed questioning concurrent findings by Trial and Appellate Courts holding petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’ for short). 3. It was submitted revision petition was filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, petitioner had totally denied any financial transactions with complainant and on other hand claimed that cheque in question was issued to Ramappa Gangappa Hulkund (R.G.Hulkund) which was misused by present complainant apart from doubting financial capacity of complainant. It was submitted, in light of such contentions, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1748 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2023 which were also urged by petitioner in Ex.P.6 – reply notice, it was incumbent on part of respondent / complainant to have produce sufficient material to substantiate transactions between petitioner and complainant. It is submitted only documents produced were cheque, bank endorsement, legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement, reply notice, certified copy of private complainant and certified copy of cheque, based on which there could not be presumption in favour of complainant. On above ground sought for allowing petition. 4. On other hand, Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for respondent sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, when petitioner admitted his signature on Ex.P.1 – Cheque, both Courts had rightly availed presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Besides it was submitted, in Ex.P.6 – reply notice, petitioner had described complainant as rich and shrewd person, which would dilute any challenge on ground of financial capacity. It was submitted, merely suggesting that Ex.P.1 was in fact issued to one R.G.Hulkund for security purposes and same was misused by complainant herein would not be sufficient to rebut presumption available under Section - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1748 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2023 139 of NI Act. Besides, both Courts had examined said aspect in detail and passed well considered and reasoned orders leaving no scope for interference. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment / order. 6. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is: ‘Whether impugned judgment and order passed by trial Court and First Appellate Court call for interference by this Court? 7. Admittedly this revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.PC against concurrent findings convicting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and imposing fine amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 months. 8. As noted above, revision petition is filed on two main grounds. Firstly, disputing financial capacity of complainant. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court has taken note of defence set up by petitioner based on above very same grounds. Except making suggestion, had failed to lead - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1748 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2023 any evidence to establish same. Though decision in case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in 2010 SCC 1898, it is held that it was not necessary for complainant to step into witnesses box to rebut presumption and same could also be achieved by referring to evidence led by complainant himself. In instant case, petitioner has chosen to make suggestions and state about alleged misuse in course of his evidence, but, during cross-examination it is elicited that he had not filed any complaint about misuse of cheque. Based on same, trial Court held that petitioner had failed to rebut presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act. 9. In appeal, Appellate Court had referred to deposition and recorded a categorical finding that there was not even a single suggestion made to complainant – PW.1 that cheque issued to R.G.Hulkund for security purposes was misused by complainant. 10. Insofor as contention that there was no presumption of fact of existence of legally recoverable debt, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari reported in (2022) 7 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1748 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2023 S.C.R. 72, has held, Section 139 avails presumption in law about holder of cheque to have received same in discharge of legally recoverable debt and there would be nothing more required to be established, unless petitioner / accused led evidence to rebut presumption. In instant case, except making suggestions, there is no material placed that cheque was issued to someone else that complainant. Even R.G.Hulkund is not examined as witness. Thus petitioner has failed to make any effort towards rebuttal of presumption. Hence no grounds to interfere with impugned orders. Point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently following: ORDER Petition is dismissed. Bail bonds of accused and surety shall stand cancelled. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15