- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100032 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100031 OF 2020 IN CRL. R.P. NO.100032 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SHIVAYOGI S/O. GANGDHARAPPA HUMBI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BYDAGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PUSHPA W/O. ASHOK MULIMANI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) DATED 29.11.2019 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.52/2014 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BYADGI DATED 04.09.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1/2006 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 IN CRL. R.P. NO.100031 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SHIVAYOGI S/O. GANGADHARAPPA HUMBI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: BYDAGI, NEHRU NAGAR, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PUSHPA W/O. ASHOK MULIMANI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND HOUSEHOLD, SHIVANAND AGENCY A P M C YARD, R/O: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …RESPONDENT (BY MISS. VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) DATED 29.11.2019 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.73/2014 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BYADGI DATED 04.09.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1/2006 AND DISMISS COMPLAINT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,. THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.07.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms. Vinaya Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for Sri N.R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.100031/2020 and 100032/2020 are filed by the accused in C.C. No.1/2006, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Byadgi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), as well as the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.52/2014 and 73/2014 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur. 3. The complainant is stated to be the proprietor of Sri Shivanand Agency, which is being managed by her husband, who is the holder of a General Power of Attorney. The accused is stated to be the proprietor of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 S.G. Humbi Commission Agent, APMC Yard, Byadagi. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had availed a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on various occasions between 27.12.2004 and 26.04.2005 for the purpose of his business. In discharge of the said liability, the accused is alleged to have issued a cheque bearing No.020194 dated 02.05.2005, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Byadagi, for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. When presented for encashment, the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. 3.1 At the instance of the accused, the complainant is stated to have re-presented the cheque on 03.06.2005, which was again dishonoured with the same endorsement. Despite issuance of a statutory demand notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount, the accused neither responded to the notice nor complied with the demand. Consequently, the complainant initiated proceedings by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 upon consideration, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act'). 4. In support of the case, the husband of the complainant examined as PW.1 and produced documents marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The accused examined himself as DW.1 and also examined one more witness as DW.2, and produced a document marked as Ex.D1. Further, as per the request of the accused, a Forensic Expert was appointed as a Commissioner to examine Ex.P1 (Cheque). The expert is examined as CW.1 and the report is marked as per Ex.C1. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.9,75,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Criminal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 Appeal No.52/2014 challenging the conviction order. The complainant, on the other hand, preferred Criminal Appeal No.73/2014 seeking enhancement of the fine amount. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record by a common judgment, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, allowed the appeal filed by the complainant, and modified the sentence by directing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.18,05,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question was issued towards repayment of a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, but the complainant has altered the cheque amount to Rs.9,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the cheque was subjected to forensic examination, and the expert has opined that there was an alteration of the figure 'one' to 'nine', thereby changing the amount from one lakh to nine lakhs. The trial Court, however, failed to consider the expert opinion. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 6.1 Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that the amount written in figures and the amount written in words are in different ink and handwriting. It is also submitted that the trial Court relied on Ex.P11, which, according to the petitioner, was misused by the complainant. Learned counsel contends that Ex.P11 was on the business letterhead, and by that time, the business had already been closed. It is alleged that due to prior business transactions, a signed letterhead was in possession of the complainant, and the same has been misused. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–complainant submits that the signatures on Exs.P1 and P11 are identical and not disputed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner admits the issuance of Ex.P1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/–. Hence, the execution of the cheque and the signature thereon stands admitted. Learned counsel contends that once the transaction and liability to repay Rs.1,00,000/– is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 admitted, the plea that the amount was altered from one lakh to nine lakhs is untenable. It is further submitted that in the list of sundry debtors for the financial year ending 31.03.2006 up to the assessment year 2024–25, a sum of Rs.9,00,000/– is shown as receivable from the petitioner. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the respondent– complainant seeking permission to produce the list of sundry debtors was initially allowed by the trial Court. However, upon challenge by the petitioner, the said order permitting production of the list of sundry debtors was set aside. It is submitted that since the said document was not marked in evidence, the same cannot be considered by this Court. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. The execution of the cheque and the signature thereon is admitted by both parties. The only dispute - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 pertains to the cheque amount. According to the petitioner, the cheque was issued only for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, and the same has been altered to Rs.9,00,000/-, allegedly by taking advantage of the fact that the amount in words was not filled in. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that once the liability to repay Rs.1,00,000/- is admitted, the denial of the cheque amount of Rs.9,00,000/- is untenable. The complainant filed a memo enclosing the balance sheet and list of sundry debtors. A perusal of the said documents, pertaining to the assessment years 2006–07 to 2024–25, indicates that a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- is reflected as receivable from the petitioner. 11. Insofar as Ex.P1-receipt issued by the accused, is concerned, although the signature thereon is not disputed, the contents are denied on the ground that the business for which the letterhead was printed had already been closed as on the date of Ex.P11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to adduce additional evidence to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 establish that Ex.P11 was misused after the closure of the said business. 12. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent sought to rely on income tax returns, along with the list of sundry debtors and balance sheets, to establish the subsistence of the debt. However, the order passed by the trial Court permitting production of the list of sundry debtors for the year ending 31.03.2006 was subsequently set aside by this Court in Criminal Petition No.10912/2023, dated 17.07.2013. Though this Court declined the production of additional evidence by the respondent on technical grounds, the continued reflection of the entry from 2006–07 to 2024–25 is of material relevance to the complainant’s case. Furthermore, the expert opinion of CW.1, which is vital in light of the allegation that the cheque amount was altered from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/-, has not been considered by the trial Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 13. Considering the substantial amount of Rs.9,00,000/- involved, and in light of the additional evidence sought to be produced by both parties, this Court is of the view that an opportunity ought to be afforded to both sides to lead further evidence. Such an exercise can appropriately be undertaken only before the trial Court. Accordingly, the matter deserves to be remanded for the said purpose. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the following: ORDER (i) Both criminal revision petitions are allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence in C.C.No.01/2006 dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Byadgi, and judgment of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal Nos.52/2014 connected with 73/2014 dated 29.11.2019 passed by the II - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, are set aside. (iii) C.C.No.01/2006 dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Byadgi, is restored to file. (iv) Both the parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence. (v) Considering that the transaction is of the year 2005, the trial Court is requested to endeavor early conclusion of the remand proceedings. (vi) Any observations made in the course of this order will not come in the way of merits of the case. (vii) The contentions of both the parties are kept open. (viii) Ordered accordingly. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9227 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100031 of 2020 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 14.02.2020, an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- is deposited. In view of the order of remand, the amount in deposit shall be kept as fixed deposit subject to the outcome of the remand proceedings. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7