- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100313 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: DR.DINESH S/O. JAGANNATH NARAYANKAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR, DEPT. OF CRIMINOLOGY, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD-580003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KOWDI R ISHWAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SATISH S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR SATAPATI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. ANAND NAGAR ROAD, GANESH NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.A. BHAT AND SRI AAYUSH G. BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W. SEC. 401 OF CR.PC. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE IN C.C. NO. 3266/2015 ON THE FILE OF JMFC II HUBBALLI AND THAT OF CRL. APPEAL NO. 5032/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND TO EXAMINE THE LEGALITY, PROPERITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FINDINGS OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2222 IN CRL.A APPEAL NO. 5032/2022 OF THE HON’BLE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT DATED 07.03.2022 IN C.C.NO. 3266/2015 ON THE FILE COURT OF JMFC II, HUBBALLI FOR AN OFFENCE U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ORDER THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.03 10:52:24 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Kowdi R. Ishwar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.3266/2015 dated 07.03.2022 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5032/2022 dated 29.07.2022 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused and complainant are well acquainted with each other and in the month of July 2014, accused approached the complainant and requested him to advance hand loan in a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, on 03.07.2014, complainant advanced sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused with a promise to repay the same. Towards repayment, accused issued two cheques bearing No.200228 dated 01.09.2014 in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.200229 dated 01.10.2014 in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Both the cheques on presentation returned with an dishonored ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, legal notice came to be issued. Though legal notice is issued, accused instead of complying the callings of the legal notice, issued frivolous 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 15 documents which were exhibited and marked as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 Ex.P.1 to 15 comprising of dishonored cheque, counterfoil of cheque deposit slips, return memo, legal notice, portal receipt, acknowledgement, reply notice issued by the accused and letters endorsing dishonor. 6. In the cross-examination of the complainant, it is elicited that on 13.07.2014, complainant has lent the amount in cash to the accused. He also stated that there is a mistake in the complaint averments that actually amount was lent on 13.07.2014 and by mistake it has been mentioned as 03.07.2014. Except such admission, there is no other useful material elicited in the cross- examination. 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances. 8. In order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1, his sister as D.W.2 and Police Officer as D.W.3. Testimony - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 of D.W.1 and 2 are nothing but a self serving testimony inasmuch as there was no corroboration for the same. The accused tried to contend that he acted as a guarantor voluntarily and therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt. D.W.2 supported her brother by contending that there was no transaction as is alleged by the complainant. 9. D.W.3 is the Police Officer who did not support the case of the accused though summoned on behalf of the accused. D.W.3 was not treated as a hostile witness nor cross-examined by the accused. 10. 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 him to pay fine amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, out of which sum of Rs.2,30,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 Rs.10,000/- to be paid towards defraying expenses of the State. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5032/2022. 12. 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 of the accused by considered judgment dated 29.07.2022. 13. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have failed to consider the material contradictions in the case of the complainant and wrongly convicted the revision petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 15. He would point out that in the complaint itself, there is an averment that complainant has lent sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 03.07.2014 whereas complainant categorically admits in his cross-examination that actually amount is lent on 13.07.2014, but there is a mistake in writing the date in the complaint. But same has not been considered by the learned Trial Magistrate or the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court which is a material contradiction going to the very root of the matter and sought for allowing the revision petition. 16. He would further contend that amount said to have been lent is in cash and there is no proper proof for the same and lending capacity of the complainant has not been established by the complainant. Therefore, conviction of the revision petitioner is bad in law and sought for allowing the revision petition. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 18. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute that both the cheques marked at Exs.P.1 and 2 belonged to the revision petitioner and signature found therein is that of the revision petitioner is not in dispute. According to the defence, said cheques were issued by the revision petitioner in respect of another case as a guarantor. 20. To substantiate the same, revision petitioner has examined his sister as D.W.2. On perusal of the oral testimony of D.W.1 and 2, it is nothing but a self serving testimony and there is no proper proof to place the same. No further materials are found to substantiate the said stand. 21. It is now settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that even the cheque issued as a guarantor or the security, when gets dishonored, would be a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 punishable offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 22. D.W.3 who is the Police Officer of Old Hubballi Police Station who said to have been witnessing the fact that cheques where issued by the revision petitioner to the complainant in respect of settlement of a matter as a guarantor, did not support the case of the revision petitioner. 23. Accordingly, when there is a clear defence that has been taken by the revision petitioner that the cheques did not carry any legally recoverable debt and failed to prove the same, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicting the revision petitioner is just and proper which has been rightly reappreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 24. Having regard to the limited powers under the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter in upsetting the finding recorded by both the Courts with cogent and convincing reasons. 25. Accordingly, conviction of the revision petitioner needs no interference. 26. However, it is noticed that out of the fine amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State. Same needs interference as the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 27. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715 CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022 amount ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- is reduced to sum of Rs.2,30,000/-. iii. Entire sum of Rs.2,30,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate. iv. Sum of Rs.10,000/- 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. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 2