- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1553 CRL.RP No. 100041 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100041 OF 2017 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100040 OF 2017 IN CRL.RP. NO.100041 OF 2017: BETWEEN: PRAVEEN S/O. ADIVAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: YERIPRASAD, H.NO.37, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: ANILKUMAR S/O. MANOHAR DEVADHAR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. SHANTI NAGAR, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.P. DIXIT AND SRI. PRAKASH S.UDIKERI, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.01.2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.10.2016 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.287 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC, DHARWAD AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. IN CRL.RP. NO.100040 OF 2017: BETWEEN: PRAVEEN S/O. ADIVAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: YERIPRASAD, H.NO.37, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.03 11:33:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1553 CRL.RP No. 100041 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2017 KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: ANILKUMAR S/O. MANOHAR DEVADHAR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. SHANTI NAGAR, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.P.DIXIT AND SRI. PRAKASH S.UDIKERI, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.01.2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.10.2016 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.284 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC, DHARWAD AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. These petitions arise out of the judgment convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, respectively. 2. The respondent herein had filed two complaints against the petitioner under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for the offence punishable under - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1553 CRL.RP No. 100041 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2017 Section 138 of the N.I. Act, alleging that the subject cheques, each amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/-, were issued by the accused towards the repayment of a loan. 3. The accused entered an appearance, and after conducting the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by the same, these petitions have been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Following the order of sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the fine amount before this Court. Although the subject cheques were for Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/-, the trial Court has not assigned any reasons for imposing a fine amount twice the cheque amount. 6. Section 138 of the N.I. Act states that a person committing an offence under the provision shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years or with a fine that may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. Therefore, it is not mandatory to impose a fine amount equal to twice the cheque amount, and the imposition of such a fine depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge have not provided any justification for imposing double the fine amount. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1553 CRL.RP No. 100041 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2017 7. Since the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the fine amount before this Court, it would suffice to modify the sentence by restricting the fine amount to the cheque amount. Accordingly, to this extent, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence requires modification. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER a) The appeals are allowed. b) The impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Dharwad in Crl.P.Nos.128/2016 and 129/2016 and the judgment and order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Dharwad in C.C.No.284/2013 and 287/2013 are hereby modified as follows. c) The appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- respectively and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years. d) The complainant has withdrawn the cheque amount deposited by the accused before this Court. e) The appellant/accused having deposited the entire cheques amount, the order of sentence passed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1553 CRL.RP No. 100041 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2017 against the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years is set aside in case of default is set aside. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36