- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4576 CRL.RP No. 100193 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100193 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: CHANNAMALIKARJUNAYYA S/O. K.M. MUURIGEYYA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AROGYA MILK CENTRE, RAJU BUILDING, LATA INTERNET CENTRE, NADUVALPETE, HARIHAR, DIST. DAVANAGERE, NOW AT CHIRASTHEHALLI, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SHIVAMURTHI S/O. BHARAMAPPA HALLALLI @ ALLALLI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AUTO DRIVER AND BUSINESS, R/O. KURUBAGERI, NEAR DODDAKALLU, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRL.A.NO.85/2019 DATED 13/07/2020 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANBENNUR, IN CC NO.22/2017 DATED 07/11/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.14 16:03:17 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4576 CRL.RP No. 100193 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.G.N.Narasammanavar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.22/2017 confirmed in Crl.A.No.85/2019 is the revision petitioner. 2. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’), by contending that the complainant has lend sum of Rs.2,25,000/- on 15.06.2016 and towards - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4576 CRL.RP No. 100193 of 2020 the repayment of the said cheque, he issued Ex.P.1- cheque bearing No.209171 in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. 3. Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored, and there was no compliance to the calling of legal notice, and untenable reply was sent, action was sought. 4. After due trial, the accused was convicted for the aforesaid offence and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.2,35,000/-, of which a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and a balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.85/2019 which on contest by judgment dated 13.07.2020 came to be dismissed. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4576 CRL.RP No. 100193 of 2020 7. Sri.Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the both the courts are not properly appreciated the defence taken by the accused, inasmuch as, it is the specific case of the accused that brother of the complainant has stolen the cheque from the custody of the accused, which has been misused and false complaint came to be filed. 8. Therefore, the impugned judgment resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, Sri.G.N.Narasammanavar, would support the impugned judgments. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that Ex.P.1-cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is not in dispute. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4576 CRL.RP No. 100193 of 2020 12. The defence taken by the accused is that cheque was stolen by the brother of the complainant and it was misused. But to establish the said defence no positive action has been taken by the accused in respect alleged misused of the cheque either by filing police complaint or by issuing legal notice. 13. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial magistrate has rightly convicted the accused by applying presumption available in the complaint under Section 139 of the N.I.Act and it has been rightly reappreciated by the learned trial judge in the first appellate Court. 14. Keeping in mind the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this court is of the considered opinion that impugned judgment does not call for interference with regard to the conviction. 15. However, with regard to the imposition of Rs.10,000/- as the fine amount to be appropriated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4576 CRL.RP No. 100193 of 2020 towards defraying expenses of the State. Same is interference inasmuch as the lis privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 16. Accordingly, from the above discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, fine amount is modified to sum of Rs.2,25,000/- (iii) Entire enhanced the fine amount is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant on or before 15.04.2025. (iv) Failing which accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. (v) Sum of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the trial Court confirmed by the first appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4576 CRL.RP No. 100193 of 2020 (vi) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 3