- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4115 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100383 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI MADARSAHEB S/O. BAPUSAHEB JAMADAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO.114, 2ND CROSS, VAIBHAV NAGAR, NEAR BAUXITE ROAD, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: NAVEED S/O. WAHID SIDDIQUE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO.4273, JALGAR GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARAD M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 62/2021 DATED ON 26.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDL. SESSION JUDGE BELAGAVI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN C.C. NO.765/2017 DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED BY THE VIII JMFC. BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N I ACT AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.11 14:27:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4115 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, for revision petitioner and Sri.Sharad M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’), in C.C.No.765/2017 and ordered to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/, out of which a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation and the balance sum of Rs.25,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State with default sentence of 3 months for simple imprisonment which has got confirmed in Crl.A.No.62/2021 dated 26.08.2022 is the revision petitioner, which was modified by the first appellate Court which was directed the accused to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and out of which Rs.290,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State is the revision petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4115 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2022 3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under: A cheque came to be issued on 02.07.2014 in a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- which was paid towards repayment of the hand loan obtained on 02.04.2014 came to be dishonored with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. 4. A legal notice was issued, and there is no complainant to be calling with the notice, which resulted in filing the complaint seeking action against the revision petitioner. 5. Learned trial magistrate after completing necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined as P.W.1 and placed 7 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as EX.P.1 to P.7. 7. Detailed cross-examination of PW.1 did not lead to any positive material so as to rebut the presumption - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4115 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2022 available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 8. Thereafter, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short. ‘the Cr.P.C.’) was recorded, wherein accused has denied all the incriminating materials, but failed to place any oral and documentary evidence on record. 9. Thereafter, learned trial magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and convicted accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act., and imposed fine of Rs.400,000/- out of which sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and the balance sum of Rs.25,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.62/2021. 11. Learned judge in the first appellate Court after securing records, heard the parties in detail and re- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4115 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2022 appreciation of material available on record, maintained the order of conviction, but modified the sentence by the imposing the fine in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.2,60,000/- and out of which Rs.2,90,000/- as ordered to be paid as compensation and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this court. 13. Learned revision petitioner Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, vehemently contended that both the courts have not properly appreciated the materials available on record and wrongly convicted the accused and thus sought for allowing of the revision petition. 14. He also contended that the sentence ordered by the trial magistrate though modified by the learned judge in the first appellate court, modified the sentence is suffering from serious lacuna and sought for allowing of the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4115 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2022 15. Per contra, Sri.Sharad M. Patil, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant supports impugned orders. 16. Having heard parties in detail, this Court perused the material records meticulously. On such perusal of the material on records, issuance of cheque by revision petitioner and signature found therein is not in disput. Pertinent to note that once the cheque is issued by the accused and the signature therein is not disputed, the complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheque is issued towards legally recoverable debt. 17. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, the accused neither placed on record any oral and documentary evidence on record. 18. Under such circumstances, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.At., needs no interference. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4115 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2022 19. As could be seen from the judgment of the first appellate Court, learned judge in the first appellate Court using the discretion vested in the appellate jurisdiction reduced the sentence as ordered by the learned trial magistrate from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- as against cheque amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. 20. The complainant has not filed any revision against the said modified and therefore, insofar as the complainant is concerned said order has become final. 21. Taking note of the fact that sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid as defraying expenses of the State is concerned, since lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, awarding of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be sustained in law. 22. Accordingly, from the above discussion, the following order is passed. ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed in part. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4115 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2022 ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, fine amount is modified by the first appellate Court in sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.2,90,000/-. iii. Entire amount of Rs.2,90,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. iv. Time is granted till 30.03.2025 to pay balance of fine amount failing which, the revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. v. Sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by learned judge in the first appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. vi. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant into due identification. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25