- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6521 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100040 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LAXMI FERTILIZERS YADWAD TQ. GOKAK, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. ANNAJI S/O. GUNDOPANTH DESHPANDE, R/O. RAMKRISHNA NAGAR, MATASHRI NILAYA, H.NO.36, 3RD MAIN ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD. 2. SRI. ANNAJI S/O. GUNDOPANTH DESHPANDE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAMKRISHNA NAGAR, MATASHRI NILAYA, H.NO.36, 3RD MAIN ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE) AND: YALLAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA NYAMGOUDAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YADWAD, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/12/2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.124/2018 BY THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK WHEREIN CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/03/2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDALAGI IN C.C.NO.528/2016 AND THEREBY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED AND ANY OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS DEEMS FIT. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.25 16:09:00 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6521 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2020 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 Sri.Bahubali N.Kanabargi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sadiq N.Goodwala, counsel for Sri.Prashant Mathapati, advocate for respondent. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.528/2016 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981( for short hereinafter ’NI Act’) and order to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State as fine. Order of conviction and sentence got confirmed in Crl.A.No.124/2018. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6521 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2020 4. Facts in the nutshell which are at most necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1 A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Cr.PC alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on account of the fact that accused failed to honour the cheques marked at Ex.P1 and P2 which were given in lieu of the legally recoverable debt. 4.2 After due trial, accused has been convicted by the trial Magistrate. Answers obtained in the cross examination with regard to the improper service of the legal notice and also taking note of the fact that the second accused being the proprietor of the first accused for whole and sole for the affairs of M/s Lakshmi Enterprises, the trial Magistrate rightly raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and noted that the defence evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption and rightly convicted - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6521 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2020 the accused which was rightly confirmed by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court. 4.3 Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners are before this Court. 5. Sri.Bahubali N. Kanabargi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the oral testimony of DW1 and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, Sri.Sadiq N. Goodwala, on behalf of counsel Sri.Prashanth Mathapatti counsel for respondent supports the impugned orders. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, issuance of cheques by the second accused for and on behalf of the liability of the first accused-proprietary concern vide Ex.P1 and P2 stands established by placing - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6521 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2020 necessary evidence. The signature found in Exs. P1 and P2 is that of second accused. Legal notice is not complied by the accused demanding the payment. 9. The only defence that was taken by the accused is that there is no proper service of legal notice. In the cross examination, accused admits about the address found on the return cover. It is pertinent to note that in the appeal filed by the accused, he has given the very same address that of the address found in the return cover where the legal notice was sent. 10. Therefore, it was for the accused to rebut the presumption which has been rightly raised by the learned trial Magistrate under Section 139 of the NI Act. The oral evidence of DW1 was hardly sufficient to rebut such presumption. 11. Accordingly conviction order passed by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 12. Having said so, the learned trial Magistrate has ordered Rs.5000/- towards the defraying expenses of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6521 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2020 State which needs interference in view of the fact that lis is privy to parties and no State machinery is involved. Accordingly same needs to be set aside. 13. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, fine amount of Rs.2,30,000/- is reduced to Rs.2,25,000/- and the same is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. (iii) Sum of Rs.5000/- imposed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6521 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2020 (iv) Time is extended till 15.05.2025 to pay the balance amount of compensation. (v) Failure to pay the balance amount of compensation would automatically result in undergoing the imprisonment ordered by trial Magistrate. (vi) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46