- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5830 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100258 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI RAJU S/O. BHOMANI MAJUKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO. 52, MARUTI GALLI, MACHCHE, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590003. …PETITIONER (BY MISS AMRUTHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: NEW NAVHIND MULTIPURPOSE MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., YALLUR, TALUKA AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS RECOVER MANAGER, SHRI KASHINATH BASVANTAPPA BISIROTTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. VADGAON, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GEETHA K.M @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 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. 224/2020 DATED ON 02.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. DIST. AND SESSION JUDGE BELAGAVI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.1634/2018 DATED 06.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V J.M.F.C. BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.04 15:52:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5830 CRL.RP No. 100258 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 Miss Amrutha appearing for Sri Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Smt. Geeta K.M. @ Pawar, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) in C.C. No.1634/2018 and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,95,000/- confirmed in Crl.A.No.224/2020 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5830 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2022 4. The complaint averments reveal that the complainant is a Multi-State Cooperative Society and it was in the business of lending the money. Accused being the member of District Cooperative Society, took the loan in Majgaon Branch, Belagavi District in a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 23.04.2015 with account No.785. He failed to repay the said loan amount and ultimately issued a cheque in a sum of Rs.1,54,700/- on 25.06.2018 bearing No.328971 drawn on Vijaya Bank. Said cheque on presentation, came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. There was no compliance to the callings of legal notice and therefore, complaint came to be lodged seeking action against the accused. 5. Learned Trial Magistrate following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association vs. Union of India and others1 treated the affidavit in lieu of sworn statement and proceeded with the matter. 1 2014 5 SCC 590 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5830 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2022 6. Accused failed to place any rebuttal evidence on record. Accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused by raising the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act and awarded fine of Rs.1,95,000/- of which sum of Rs.1,94,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant-Society and balance amount of Rs.1,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after considering the appeal grounds, re-appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 10. Miss Amrutha learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5830 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2022 petition, vehemently contended that the approach of the learned Trial Magistrate in accepting the case of the complainant even though there were other materials on record which would establish that the presumption was rebutted has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Per contra, Smt. Geeta K.M. @ Pawar, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 12. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that accused was a member of the complainant-Society. He took the loan in a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the year 2015 and failed to repay the same. Towards the repayment, cheque in question came to be issued. Said check admittedly came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5830 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2022 There was no compliance to the callings of notice and there was no reply. Therefore, learned Trial Judge was of the considered opinion that the complainant has discharged the initial burden in placing the oral and documentary evidence on record which would be sufficient enough to raise the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 14. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. But to rebut the presumption, there is no contra evidence placed on record by the accused. 15. As such, following the dictum in the case of Indian Bank Association, the learned Trial Judge was justified in raising the presumption and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, rightly convicted the accused and imposed the fine in a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-. 16. However, sum of Rs.1,000/- ordered towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law inasmuch as there is no State machinery involved in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5830 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2022 the case as the lis is privy to the parties. Accordingly, said sum of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the Trial Magistrate towards the defraying expenses of the State needs to be set aside. 17. In view of the foregoing discussions, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, imposing the fine of Rs.1,95,000/- is modified to Rs.1,94,000/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.1,94,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant- Society under due identification. (iv) Time is extended to pay the balance fine amount till 30.04.2025. (v) Failure to pay the fine amount on or before 30.04.2025, accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5830 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2022 (vi) A sum of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. (vii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45