- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12387 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1401 OF 2016 BETWEEN: M.P KRISHNARAJU S/O LATE PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RAVI PRESS, MAHADEVPET MADIKERI-571 201 KODAGU DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY MR. B.S BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: S.V.GIRISH S/O S .VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SHIVAPURA VILLAGE, KODLIPET HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DIST-571 213 …RESPONDENT (BY MR. C.P. PUTTARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION/SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.518/2008 DATED 24.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMWARPET AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.39/2015 DATED 26.08.2016. Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12387 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.39/2015 dated 26.08.2016 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment passed in C.C.No.518/2008 dated 24.03.2015 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Somwarpet (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and modified the sentence by imposing a fine amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the petitioner instead of Rs.1,90,000/- imposed by the Trial Court. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that: The revision petitioner/accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.95,000/- from the respondent/complainant on 10.04.2007 for his family's legal necessities and agreed to repay the same within five months. On failing to repay the same, he issued a cheque i.e., Ex.P1 dated 10.09.2007 for Rs.95,000/-. On his instructions, the complainant, i.e., the respondent, presented - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12387 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2016 the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient.' Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused to repay the cheque amount. However, the accused failed to repay the same. As such, a private complaint has been filed by the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') 3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW.1 and additionally examined one more witness as PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, the respondent/accused examined himself as DW.1 and no documents got marked on behalf of him. 4. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the Trial Court, the learned Trial Court passed the judgment by convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act by imposing a fine amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and in default of payment of fine, directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The said judgment was challenged by the accused before the learned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12387 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2016 Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.39/2015. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, confirmed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court by modifying the fine amount from Rs.1,90,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/- and directed that if the accused failed to repay the same, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 5. I have heard Sri. B.S.Basavaraju, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. C.P.Puttaraja, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly submits that the cheque amount was Rs.95,000/- and as per the interim order passed by this Court in the instant case, the revision petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- before the Trial Court. He would also submit that by considering this aspect the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court be reduced to the cheque amount since the revision petitioner intends to resolve the dispute. The learned counsel for the respondent by conceding with the submission prays to impose reasonable fine amount. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12387 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2016 7. By relying on the counsels' submissions on record, I am of the considered view that the fine amount imposed by the Sessions Court be modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay fine amount of Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.1,40,000/- to the respondent. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Revision petition is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet in C.C.No.518/2008, which was confirmed and modified by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in Crl.A.No.39/2015 is hereby modified. iii) The revision petitioner/accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- to the respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. iv) If the fine amount is deposited, the entire fine amount shall be paid as compensation - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12387 CRL.RP No. 1401 of 2016 to the complainant/respondent under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. v) The said fine amount includes the amount, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner before the Trial Court. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11