- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100076 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI NAGARAJ GUPTA S/O. MANGALESH GUPTA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. JAYANAGAR GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA PUROHIT, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: SHRI NARAYANA RAO S/O. SHESHAPPA ANVEKAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. GOLD SMITH WORK, R/O. BEHIND LADIES HOSTEL, VIJAYANA NAGAR COLONY, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.01.2022 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.23/2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL SITTING AT GANGAVATHI, THERE BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED HEREIN AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATHI, DATED 15.01.2021 CC NO.1070/2017, THERE BY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT AND SENTENCING HIM TO PAY A FINE OF 2,30,000/- WITH A DEFAULT CLAUSE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.09 11:34:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Raghavendra Purohit, learned amicus curiae for the revision petitioner and Sri.Satosh B. Malligawad, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.1070/2017 dated 15.01.2021 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was ordered to be pay fine amount of Rs.2,30,000/-, out of which sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.23/2021 dated 19.01.2022 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 3.1. Accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on account of the fact that cheque in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was issued by the accused towards repayment of the hand loan. Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. There was no compliance to the callings of the notice nor there was any reply. Therefore, complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. After completing necessary formalities, learned Trial Magistrate summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record 11 documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to 11. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 6. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances. 7. In order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and placed on record small note book which was exhibited and marked as Ex.D.1 8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, found that material evidence placed on record was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 9. Not only the cheque was relied upon by the learned Trial Magistrate while convicting the accused but - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 also the promissory note executed by the accused which was marked as Ex.P.9. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.23/2021. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and in the light of the appeal grounds and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by considered judgment dated 19.01.2022. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 13. Learned amicus curiae for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that cheque came to be issued to one Raju which has been misused by the complainant and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 there is no privity between the complainant the accused and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 15. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that cheque marked at Ex.P.1 belongs to the revision petitioner and signature found therein is that of the revision petitioner is not in dispute. Legal notice is duly served but there was no reply sent by the revision petitioner. 17. Further, it is the definite defence of the revision petitioner that cheque was issued to ‘Raju’. Said Raju is neither cited as a witness nor any criminal action has been initiated against the Raju and the complainant for misuse of the cheque. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption in favour of the complainant more so amount mentioned in the cheque is sufficiently corroborated by marking the promissory note executed by the revision petitioner at Ex.P.9. As against the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, learned Trial Magistrate has imposed Rs.2,30,000/- as fine amount and sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid towards defraying expenses of the State. 19. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated the material evidence on record and thereafter, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner. 20. Even in the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any compelling reasons to upset the findings recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in upholding the order of conviction. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 21. Having said thus, sum of Rs.5,000/- is imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate towards defraying expenses of the State needs to be set aside inasmuch as lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 22. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.2,30,000/- ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is reduced to sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. iii. Entire sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5920 CRL.RP No. 100076 of 2022 iv. Sum of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate to be paid towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. v. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to pay the amount till 30.04.2025 failing which revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. Services rendered by Sri.Raghavendra Purohit, learned amicus curiae is placed on record with appreciation. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 46