- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6431 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100360 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI YALLAPPA GHALAGU KADOLKAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #288/c, VENGURLA ROAD, HINDALAGA, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH V. BADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: NEW NAVAHIND MULTI PURPOSE CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., YALLUR, R/BY. ITS RECOVERY MANAGER, SHRI KASHINATH BASAVANTHAPPA BISIROTTI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. VADAGAON, BELAGAVI, DIST. BLEAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETJA K.M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 07.05.2022 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.99/2021, AND JUDGMENT DATED 02.03.2021 PASSED BY JMFC- V, BELAGAVI, IN CC NO.1366/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.22 14:44:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6431 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Viswhwanath V. Badiger, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Geeta K. M., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.1366/2018 dated 02.03.2021 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine of Rs.24,00,000/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.21,76,700/-, out of which sum of Rs.23,98,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.2,000/- is ordered to be paid towards defraying expenses of the State. 3. Validity of the said conviction order is challenged by the accused in Crl.A.No.99/2021. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6431 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2022 in detail and by considered judgment dated 07.05.2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that there is a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore, there was no liability as is mentioned in the cheque to the extent of Rs.21,76,700/-. Therefore, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is per se illegal and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. He would further contend that fact that sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has already been deposited and petitioner is now ready to pay another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and close the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent did not agree for the said proposal and contended that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6431 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2022 transaction is of year 2014 and sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is the admitted loan amount and as against the same, society is not interested to take only Rs.12,00,000/- and close the matter and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that revision petitioner is the member of respondent/society. He had availed loan in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 27.11.2014. 11. Admittedly, he did not repay the said amount. Finally, he should a cheque bearing No.043276 drawn on Karnataka Vikasa Grameena Bank, Hindalaga Branch in a sum of Rs.21,76,700/- towards repayment of the said loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with accrued interest. 12. Admittedly, cheque came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and there was no - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6431 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2022 compliance to be callings of the notice. Therefore, action was sought by the complainant against the accused. 13. Account statement of the respondent/society is marked at Ex.P.10. Loan surety bond, letter of undertaking, memorandum of deposit of title deeds are also placed on record and copy of the loan application is marked at Ex.P.12. 14. These aspects of the matter would clearly make out a case that accused had borrowed loan in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent/society. 15. Further, when there is a default on the part of the accused, follow up for the recovery of loan amount was made. Pursuant to which, Ex.P.1 came to be issued by the accused which came to be dishonored as per Ex.P.2 – bank memo. 16. Learned Trial Magistrate following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Union of India and Others reported in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6431 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2022 (2014) 5 SCC 590, had raised the presumption on behalf of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the absence of rebuttal evidence placed on record by the accused either by examining himself or producing any other documentary evidence, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 17. As against the cheque amount of Rs.21,76,700/-, imposition of the fine of Rs.24,00,000/- is just and proper but sum of Rs.2,000/- is ordered to be paid as defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law as lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 18. Accordingly, from the above discussion, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6431 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2022 ii. While maintaining the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.24,00,000/-, ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is reduced to sum of Rs.23,98,000/- . iii. Entire sum of Rs.23,98,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. iv. Time is extended to pay the balance fine amount till 15.05.2025. v. Failure to pay the fine amount of Rs.23,98,000/- on or before 15.05.2025, simple imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. vi. Fine amount of Rs.2,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6431 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2022 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.: 59