- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2605 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100044 OF 2023 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: GURUPADAPPA S/O REVANASIDDAPPA SINDHUR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. ARALESHWARA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104. … PETITIONER (BY SRI S.N.BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. DHARIYAPPA HAVANUR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KARAGUDARI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN CRL.APPEAL NO.6/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI, DATED 03.11.2022 SO ALSO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.373/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HANGAL DATED 06.01.2022 AND SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.6/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI, DATED 03.11.2022 SO ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SENTENCE AND ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.373/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HANGAL, DATED 06.01.2022 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND TO DISMISSING AND TO ACQUIT BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2025.02.12 14:17:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2605 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2023 THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment/order dated 03.11.2022 passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Crl.Appeal No.6/2022 and judgment/order dated 06.01.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal in C.C.no.373/2016, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri S.N.Banakar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a private complaint was filed by respondent stating that complainant was an agriculturist and resident of Karagudari village growing sugarcane, while accused was running a sugarcane crushing unit at Suraleshwar, Hangal for production of jaggery. It was stated that complainant was supplying sugarcane to accused and as such, they knew each other. On 20.12.2013 accused had approached complainant for hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to attend his domestic necessities. Same was given on assurance by accused that it would be paid - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2605 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2023 as early as possible. After amount was lent, when demanded for return, accused postponing it but thereafter issued cheque bearing no.873120 dated 10.03.2014 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Hulagur Branch. 3. On presentation of cheque for collection on 16.05.2014, it returned dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient funds”. On receipt of endorsement on 22.05.2014, complainant got issued legal notice on 13.06.2014. Though notice was sent to correct address, it returned with postal shara as “unclaimed”. Despite lapse of a period of 15 days, there was no reply or attempt to refund amount. Alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’ for short) having been committed, complainant sought for appropriate action. 4. On issuance of summons, appearance and pleading not guilty to charges, matter was set for trial. In support of his complaint, complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked copy of cheque, memo, postal cover, copy of legal notice, bank slip and certified copy of order sheet as Exs.P1 to P7. Though respondent entered witness box as DW-1, he did not lead any documentary evidence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2605 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2023 5. On consideration, trial Court held accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and imposed sentence of fine of Rs.1,60,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years. Out of fine amount, sum of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid to State and remaining to be paid to complainant. 6. Aggrieved, accused filed Crl.Appeal no.6/2022. But without proper consideration, same was dismissed on 03.11.2022. Aggrieved, accused has sought revision. 7. Main ground on which revision was sought was cheque in question had several infirmities. Firstly, date of cheque was “10.03.20014”, secondly in description of amount, instead of “MAzÀÄ” it appeared as “©AzÀÄ”, and without noticing same, when cheque was put up for collection, banker had issued endorsement about dishonour due to insufficiency of funds. It was further submitted accused had taken up contention denying any transaction with complainant. Without any effort on part of complainant to establish transaction, presumption was drawn and same was contrary to law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2605 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2023 8. It was further submitted, though cheque returned dishonored on 22.05.2014, legal notice was not issued within period of 15 days thereby violating provision of Section 138 (b) of NI Act. It was further submitted accused was not permanent resident of Suraleshwar, but legal notice was issued showing him as resident of Araleshwar, while in complaint, his address was shown as c/o Kallahakla, Kamatageri, Hangal taluk. Consequently, there was irregularity insofar as issuance of legal notice. Without noticing said aspect, both Courts have passed impugned order. 9. On other hand, Sri Abhinandan Hiremath, advocate appearing for Sri G.I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently held offence under Section 138 of NI Act was established and grounds sought to be urged by accused in this revision petition were questions of fact which could not be re-agitated in revision. Insofar as discrepancy in date of cheque, it was submitted complainant had consistently claimed that date of cheque was 10th March, 2014 and same was mentioned in legal notice, complaint and affidavit also. There - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2605 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2023 was no denial of same and there was not even a single suggestion put to PW1 during cross-examination. 10. Insofar as discrepancy sought to be made out about amount in words, it was submitted was too hyper technical. Learned counsel further submitted that period within which notice had to be issued on receipt of intimation of dishonour prescribed under Section 138 (b) of NI Act was 30 days and not 15 days as sought to be contended. Intimation was received on 22.05.2014 and legal notice was issued on 13.06.2014 would be compliant with statutory provision. Insofar as contention about notice being sent to incorrect address, it was submitted in private complaint accused had appeared in response to summons and availed full opportunity. In any case, such specific defence was not urged before trial Court. Hence could not be considered for first time in revision. It was submitted, trial Court as well as first Appellate Court had rightly extended benefit of presumption in law and contentions lacked merit. 11. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment/orders and record. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2605 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2023 12. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether judgment/orders passed by both Courts suffer from perversity requiring interference?” 13. This revision petition is under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC. Scope for interference as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 40 would be minimal and normally only on questions of law, unless question of law required examining findings on facts also. First ground urged is discrepancy in date of cheque. Perusal of Ex.P1 does indicate that date written is 10.03.20014, but complainant has specifically stated that entries on cheque were made by accused himself. Further perusal of cross-examination of PW1 would reveal that not even single suggestion was made about invalidity of cheque due to incorrect date, nor specific contention raised in appeal. Likewise discrepancy in description of cheque amount in vernacular would be too flimsy and hyper technical calling for outright rejection. And as rightly submitted by learned counsel for complainant, period for issuance of legal notice after receipt of intimation about dishonor is 30 days as per Section 138 (b) of NI Act amended by Act no.55 of 2022 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2605 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2023 with effect from 06.02.2003. Insofar as contention about notice being issued to incorrect address, Ex.P3 discloses postal shara as ‘not claimed’ along with endorsement about notice being carried on beat several times. It would be unlikely for postal authorities to carry an article on beat several times even if address is incorrect. Interestingly accused has not led evidence to establish his place of residence. Therefore, none of grounds urged would merit consideration. Point for consideration is answered in negative. Hence, following: ORDER Criminal revision petition is dismissed. Registry to transmit amount in deposit, if any, to trial Court. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH,CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 2