- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6430 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2019 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.100131 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. PARAVATEVVA (PARVATEWWA) W/O. MAHADEV MAHARADDI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KALLIGUDDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRIYANKA PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: AXIS BANK LTD (ERSTWHILE UTI BANK LTD.,) A BANKING COMPANY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS, UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION 1949, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT TRISHUL, 3RD FLOOR, OPP. SAMARTHESHWAR TEMPLE, LAW GARDEN, ELLIS BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD-380006, GUJARAT AND HAVING BRANCHES AMONGST OTHER AT, CONGRESS ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. VICE PRESIDENT AND BRANCH HEAD, MR. ATUL A. KULKARNI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. BANK SERVICE, R/O. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT- NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE XI-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:34:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6430 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2019 BELAGAVI, IN CRL.A.NO.171/2018, DATED 18.01.2019, IN CONFIRMING THE SENTENCES PASSED IN C.C.NO.1639/2009 (OLD CASE) C.C.NO.1269/2017 (NEW CASE) DATED 01.02.2018, PASSED BY THE V-JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINANT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Smt. Priyanka Pawar for Sri Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel for revision petitioner. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.1639/2009 which is renumbered as C.C.No.1269/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) and ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.1,65,000/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.1,54,115.30 and out of it, a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation, balance amount of Rs.1,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State, is the revision petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6430 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2019 3. The said order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.171/2018. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 5. Smt. Priyanka Pawar, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Respondent though served with the notice, remained absent. 7. Perused the records in the records in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, the original cheque which came to be dishonoured is marked as Ex.P-1 and bank endorsement shows that the cheque is dishonoured for want of funds. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6430 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2019 9. Ex.P-3 is the legal notice and Exs.P-4 and P-5 are the postal endorsements and there was no reply to the legal notice. Ex.P-6 is the loan account statement of the accused which depicts there was a due in a sum of Rs.1,54,115.30. 10. Therefore, the learned Trial Magistrate rightly raised the presumption in favour of the complainant as is available under Section 139 of N.I. Act. 11. However, the said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the same, there is no rebuttable evidence placed on record on behalf of the accused either by examining herself or by placing any other evidence. 12. Accordingly, the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused and imposing the fine amount. Same has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6430 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2019 13. Taking note of the limited power of this Court in revisional jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of rebuttal evidence, order of conviction needs no interference. 14. Further, a sum of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate towards defraying expenses of the State needs to be set aside as the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 15. Accordingly, 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 NI Act, fine amount is reduced from Rs.1,65.000/- to Rs.1,64,000/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.1,64,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6430 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2019 (iv) Time is extended till 15th of May, 2025 for the payment of the balance amount. (v) Failure to pay the fine amount on or before 15th of May, 2025, the accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months as ordered by the Trial Magistrate. (vi) Fine amount 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. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 34