- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5788 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100200 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VISHWANATH S/O. RAMAPPA NAIK, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.659, KALMESHWAR NAGAR, KANGRALI (BK), BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: NEW NAVHIND MULTI-PURPOSE MULTI STATE CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., YELLUR, BELAGAVI, R/BY. PAVAN S/O. SADANAND KHATAVAKAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, RAMLINGKHIND GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590009. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GEETHA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 112/2023 DATED 07.07.2023 UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT. PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CC NO 82/2010 DATED 19.04.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI JMFC BELAGAVI AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.04 12:20:51 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5788 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Smt. Geeta K.M. @ Pawar, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Sri Mahantesh S. Hiremath submits that despite best advice, revision petitioner did not comply the conditions of interim order and seeks permission to address the arguments on the merits of the matter. 3. Placing his submission on record, matter is heard on merits. 4. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.82/2020 confirmed in Crl.A.No.112/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.23,00,000/-. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5788 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2024 5. Facts in the nutshell 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 under Section 138 of N.I. Act by contending that accused being the member of the complainant-Society, availed a mortgage loan in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, agreeing to pay the same with interest and towards repayment, he has issued a cheque in a sum of Rs.20,81,962/-, which on presentation, came to be dishonoured. After due contest, accused has been convicted taking note of the fact that accused failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re- appreciated the same and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5788 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2024 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 8. Sri Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel for revision petitioner contends that even in the absence of defence evidence being placed on record, petitioner can very well establish his case that the presumption available to the complainant can be rebutted following the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Bhai Jeevanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarath and another1 9. Smt. Geeta K.M. @ Pawar, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 10. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record. 11. Even after following the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit 1 AIR 2019 SC 1876 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5788 CRL.RP No. 100200 of 2024 Bhai Jeevanlal Patel referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that conviction recorded by both the Courts is just and proper inasmuch as loan transaction is not in dispute and admittedly, petitioner has failed to repay the loan as agreed. 12. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity so as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Amount in deposit, if any is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18