- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100240 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PARASHURAM S/O. HANUMANTAPPA YATNALLI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINES, R/O. SAVEKERI VILLAGE, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: BASAVARAJ S/O. GADIGEPPA HEBBAL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HERIKOUNSHI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI I.Y. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, HAVERI IN CRL.A NO. 78/2022 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.09.2022 IN CC NO. 163/2018 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HANAGAL AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FROM THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.14 15:20:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri I.Y. Patil, learned counsel for respondent-complainant. 3. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I. Act’) and sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- as the fine amount as against the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and out of the same, a sum of Rs.3,23,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation and balance amount of Rs.2,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.78/2022 is the revision petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under: Complainant being the resident of Hirekaunshi village in Hangal Taluk, was an agriculturist. Accused being the resident of Savikeri village of Hangal Taluk, acquainted with the complainant for about 5 to 6 years. In that acquaintance, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in the first week of December, 2017 to meet his immediate financial requirements with a promise to repay the same in the last week of February, 2018. But accused failed to pay the same. Finally issued a cheque bearing No.684581 on 08.03.2018 in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Legal notice was issued and there was an untenable reply which made the complainant to seek action against the accused. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 5. After completing the necessary formalities, learned Trial Magistrate conducted the trial and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record including the oral testimony of the accused who has been examined as PW-1, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced as referred to supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.78/2022. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail in the light of the appeal grounds and re- appreciated the material on record and ultimately dismissed the appeal of the accused. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 9. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly taken into consideration the material placed on record which was sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of N.I. Act and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Sri I.Y. Patil, lerned counsel for respondent-complainant supports the impugned order. 11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is not disputed by the accused. Legal notice is issued after the cheque came to be dishonoured for want of funds and the same is replied by the accused. In the reply notice, cross-examination of PW-1 and oral testimony of DW-1, a theory has been put forward on behalf of the accused that a signed cheque of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 accused was misused by the complainant with the help of his brother and therefore, there was no consideration involved in Ex.P-1/cheque. 13. To advance the said theory, there is no material evidence placed on record, except the reply notice and self serving testimony of DW-1. 14. It is also pertinent to note that if a valuable cheque in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- if misused by the complainant, normal prudent person would take recourse to law in filing a complaint against the complainant for the misappropriation of the cheque. No such complaint is filed. 15. Therefore, the oral testimony of DW-1 is to be considered as self-serving testimony which is not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act and rightly convicted by the learned Trial Magistrate which has been rightly affirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 16. Therefore, having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects in upsetting the findings recorded by both the Courts with sound and logical reasons. Therefore, order of conviction needs to be maintained. 17. However, taking note of the fact that the cheque is of the year 2018 and it is for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, if the fine amount is reduced from Rs.3,25,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, ends of justice would be met. Further, awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 18. Accordingly, from the above discussions, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, fine amount of Rs.3,25,000/- is reduced to Rs.3,00,000/-. (iii) Entire amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. (iv) Time is granted to deposit the balance fine amount till 15.04.2025. (v) Failure to make the balance payment, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. (vi) A sum of Rs.2,000/- imposed towards the defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. (vii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4474 CRL.RP No. 100240 of 2023 Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 22