- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100265 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI R.S. VISHWAS S/O. R.S. SATHYAMURTHY, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.36/3, FLAT NO.104 AND 105, CHANNASANDRA, SRINIVASAPURA CROSS, RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SOURABH R. MIRJI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI R.VENKATARAMANA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS/WIFE, SMT.R.RADHARANI W/O. R.VENKATARAMANA, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.99, 6TH CROSS, SIMLA NAGAR, GUDIHAL ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI-580024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.04.2023 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.172/2019 (ANNEXURE-A) AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 PASSED BY THE JMFC III COURT, HUBBALLI AT HUBBALLI IN C.C.NO.206/2019 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.09 11:36:13 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Sourabh R. Mirje representing Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Vishwanath S. Bichagatti, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.206/2019 confirmed in Crl.A.No.172/2019 is the revision petitioner. 3. Accused was directed to pay a fine of Rs.13,10,000/- of which, a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the 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 punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 4.1 The complaint averments would reveal that accused visited the house of the complainant in the month of August, 2014 and requested that he may be given financial assistance as he has large number of orders from general public to conduct tours in different locations of India. Believing the words of the accused, complainant lent a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- as hand loan which was agreed to be repaid. 4.2 Towards repayment, accused issued two cheques dated 28.05.2015 and 28.06.2015 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively drawn on State Bank of India, HSR Layout Branch, Bengaluru, which on presentation, came to be dihonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 5. It is to be noted that in the cheques itself it has been mentioned that the cheques are valid for Rs.5,00,000/- and under, but the cheques were not dishonoured on that ground, but it was dishonoured on the ground of funds insufficient. Callings of the legal notices - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 were not adhered to by the accused. Therefore, the complainant sought for action against the accused. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and after due trial, accused was convicted and ordered to pay fine of Rs.13,10,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.172/2019. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, hearing the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 10. Sri Sourabh R. Mirje representing Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 vehemently contended that there was no liability under the cheques which would be termed as legally recoverable debt so as to raise the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act and as such, even without placing any defence on record, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Bhai Jeevanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarath and another1, the presumption stood rebutted and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Per contra, Sri Vishwanath S. Bichagatti 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, following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from 1 AIR 2019 SC 1876 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 legal infirmity and perversity and patent factual error thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Regarding point No.1: 15. In the case on hand, Exs.P-1 and P-2 are belonging to the accused and signature found therein that of the accused is not in dispute. 16. Admittedly, according to the complaint averments, complainant has lent a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- on different dates to the accused. Towards the repayment of the said amount, accused issued two cheques in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/-. Admittedly, cheques- Exs.P-1 and P-2 contain the wordings in the cheques itself that it is valid for Rs.5,00,000/- and under. 17. What prompted the accused to write a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- in those cheques is not explained by the accused. Very fact that he has issued - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 cheques in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- shows the guilty mind of the accused even at the time of issuing the cheques. 18. Further, it is to be noted that bank did not dishonor the cheques on the ground that the cheques are under the value of Rs.5,00,000/-. But it has been dishonoured for want of funds. In such circumstances, the trial Judge raising the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act is just and proper. 19. No doubt, the said presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is rebuttable presumption. To rebut the presumption, accused did not place any evidence on record either by examining himself or by placing any other documentary evidence on record or atleast summoning the bank officials that they have wrongly dishonoured the cheques as it was under Rs.5,00,000/- and cheque amount cross the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 20. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, pressed into service the principles of law enunciated in the case of Rohit Bhai supra. 21. On close reading of the principles of law enunciated in the case of Rohit Bhai, the defence that has been taken by the accused cannot be probablised because he is the author of Exs.P-1 and P-2. 22. Therefore, even after applying the principles of law enunciated in Rohit Bhai, this Court is unable to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. 23. Accordingly, in the absence of any material evidence placed on record, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Rajesh Jain V. Ajay Singh2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction order recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this revision petition having regard to the limited scope of revisional 2 2023(10) SCC 148 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 24. For the cheque amount of Rs.13,00,000/-, the Trial Judge imposed fine of Rs.13,10,000/-. Admittedly, sum of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Trial Judge towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law in view of the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved in conducting the case. Accordingly, same needs to be set aside. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding point No.3 : 25. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6047 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2023 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, fine amount is reduced from Rs.13,10,000/- to Rs.13,00,000/-. (iii) Time is extended to pay the fine amount till 30th April, 2025 failing which the accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. (iv) Complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit, if any. (v) A sum of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43