- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217 CRL.RP No. 100102 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100102 OF 2016 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED TOUSEEF AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HOTHUR ARCADE RTO ROAD, CONTONMENT, BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE) AND: GURU MATHEW AGE: MAJOR, OCC. PROPRIETOR OF GURU TRANSPORT, R/O. C/O. M. VISHWESHAWARAIH LORRY TERMINAL, STALL NO.20, AND 21, BALLARI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) OF R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25/2015 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI IN C.C.NO.1340/2012 DATED 10/08/2015 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217 CRL.RP No. 100102 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri M.L. Vanti, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri V. Shivaraj Hireamth, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed in Crl.A.No.2527/2015 is the revision petitioner. 3. In the case on hand, issuance of cheque, signature found therein and issuance of the legal notice are all admitted. In fact, after the receipt of the legal notice, accused/revision petitioner has made payment of Rs.10,00,000/- which has been taken note of and given due deduction in the impugned judgment. 4. Taking note of the same and also taking note of the fact that there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the accused, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217 CRL.RP No. 100102 of 2016 accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act after due trial and imposed the fine of Rs.15,00,000/- as against the balance amount of Rs.12,62,226/-. 5. Apart from ordering Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant, Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation as defraying expenses of the State. Accused and complainant both filed appeals against the order passed by the learned trial magistrate. Both the appeals on contest came to be dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused alone has preferred the present revision petition. 7. Sri M.L. Vanti, learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed a fine of Rs.15,10,000/- has also resulted in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217 CRL.RP No. 100102 of 2016 miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing of the revision petition. 8. Per contra, Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order. 9. He would contend that after the issuance of notice, part payment has been made which has been given due deduction by the learned trial judge himself in the impugned order while passing the judgment and imposing the fine amount of R.15,10,000/- which needs to be maintained by dismissing the revision petition. 10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, since the issuance of cheque, signature found therein is admitted and part payment is also made after the issuance of the legal notice, all ingredients to attract the for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stands established especially in the absence of any - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217 CRL.RP No. 100102 of 2016 defence evidence placed on record following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and others1 12. Now coming to the question of the fine amount and the sentence is concerned, a sum of Rs.15,10,000/- is ordered to be paid as fine amount. Out of which, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Taking note of the business transaction that existed between the parties, reducing the fine amount Rs.13,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 13. Further, imposition of Rs.10,000/- fine amount imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate towards defraying expenses of the State needs to be set aside taking note of the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 14. In view of the forgoing discussions, following : 1 (2014) 5 SCC 590 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217 CRL.RP No. 100102 of 2016 ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is reduced from Rs.15,10,000/- to Rs.13,00,000/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.13,00,000/- is to be paid or deposited in the account of the petitioner as compensation in three installments viz., from 30.03.2025, 30.04.2025 and 31.05.2025. Failing which, the accused/revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. (iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records along with copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction order. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 31