- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:328 CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 836 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SRI B.M.RUDRAPPA S/O MURIGEPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS AGRICULTURIST SHAGALE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE-571 602. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G. KARIBASAPPA S/O G. DYAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O D.NO.1852/118, PUNYAKOTI, NEAR VIDYANANDA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL VINAYAKA EXTENSION SARASWATI NAGARA, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-571 107. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KUMARA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.3022/2015 DATED 30.08.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC- FIRST COURT, DAVANAGERE AND IN CRL.A.NO.99/2018 DATED 12.08.2018 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:328 CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020 ON THE FILE FO THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. This matter is listed for admission and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal, since the records are received from the Trial Court. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the N.I. Act for short) sentencing the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.1,65,000/. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is ordered to be paid to complainant and the remaining fine of Rs.5,000/- shall vest with the State. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:328 CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020 filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision. 3. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision is that, inspite of Ex.P1-cheque is altered, the same is not considered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court also not appreciated the said fact into consideration. A bare perusal of document of Ex.P1-cheque is very clear that amount in words has been altered and instead of Rs.1,50,000/- it was altered as Rs.1,15,000/- and both the Courts failed to consider the said document. Hence, it requires interference. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that except the suggestion regarding alteration, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1. Learned counsel would contend that amount is correctly mentioned as Rs.1,50,000/- and there is alteration in mentioning the amount and would further - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:328 CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020 submit that a defence is taken during the course of cross- examination that cheque was stolen from the shop of petitioner and the said suggestion was also denied and contra suggestions are made. At one breath, it was suggested that cheque was stolen from the shop and in another breath, suggestion was made that it was altered and both the Courts, taking note of the material available on record, rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and cheque amount is Rs.1,50,000/- and the amount of compensation ordered is Rs.1,60,000/-. Hence, it does not require any interference. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal of the material available on record, the grounds which have been urged in this revision petition is that there is a material altercation of Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1, amount is mentioned as Rs.1,50,000/-, but while mentioning the same in words, it is mentioned as ‘Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand Only’ and suggestion was also made in this regard and the said suggestion was denied. However, the petitioner not denies the very issuance of cheque and the cheque is also issued with - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:328 CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020 signature and seal and the only defence taken in the cross- examination is that cheque was stolen from the shop of the petitioner and the same was denied during the course of cross- examination. No doubt, in the cross-examination, an answer is elicited that at the time of transaction, no other person was present, it is also elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 that earlier also, he was transacting with them in faith and categorically says that amount which was received earlier was repaid and even suggestion was also made that there was transaction between the petitioner and the respondent from the last 15 to 20 years. When such suggestion is made regarding transaction is concerned, it is clear that in between the petitioner and the respondent, there was a financial transaction from the last 15 to 20 years and they were having acquaintance with each other. 6. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is material altercation, the same is apparent on record. Though the cheque is issued for Rs.1,50,000/-, but in words, it is mentioned as ‘Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand Only’ and there is an overwriting and the same cannot take away the case of the respondent, since the petitioner has not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:328 CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020 disputed the very signature available in Ex.P1-cheque. It is also important to note that when legal notice dated 05.04.2013 was issued, the same has returned with an endorsement, the petitioner refused to receive the notice and the said fact is also not disputed. When such material is available before the Court and in 313 statement also, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, even the petitioner did not putforth his contention that cheque is issued for Rs.1,15,000/- and not Rs.1,50,000/- and only suggestion was made that the same was stolen from the shop of the petitioner and in order to substantiate the same, no such rebuttal evidence is placed before the Trial Court. 7. When such being the case, there is no error in the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in appreciating the material available on record and no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and the scope and ambit of revision is limited and no perversity is found in the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Hence, no grounds to admit the petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:328 CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020 8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43