- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5093 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100158 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT.NAGARATNA N.NAYAK AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, H.P.S. KASTURBA NAGAR, SIRSI, R/O. NEHARU NAGAR, NEAR PATEL SAWMI, SIRSI-581301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANTOSHKUMAR M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: CHANNABASANNA GOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ASHOK ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO KINDLY ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND KINDLY CALL FOR RECORDS AND KINDLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38/2017, DATED 12/09/2019, BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANBENNUR), CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.391/2016, DATED 15/09/2017, BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 11:52:40 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5093 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Santoshkumar M. Patil, counsel for Sri.R.H.Angadi, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ashok, Angadi, counsel for Sri.S.M.Kalwad, counsel for respondent. 2. Accused to suffer an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter for short ’NI Act’) in CC No.391/2016, confirmed in Crl.A.No.38/2017 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, contending that cheques issued by the accused towards the legally recoverable debt totally - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5093 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2020 in a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- came to be dishonoured and there was no compliance to the calling of notice. 3.2 After completing necessary formalities, trial was held. Complainant got examined himself as PW1 and accused got examined himself as a DW.1. 3.3 In the cross examination of DW1, it has been elicited that signatures found on the cheques which were dishonoured is that of the accused. 3.4 Taking note of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides, learned trial Judge was of the opinion that complainant did enjoy the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument act, which was not properly rebutted by the accused, recorded an order of conviction and sentence by imposing the fine of Rs.18,00,000/- as against cheque amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. Out of which sum Rs.17,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5093 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2020 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.38/2017. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 7. While passing the interim order, this Court imposed condition to deposit 50% of fine amount. Till today, the accused failed to comply the order. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought the permission of the Court to address the arguments on merits of the matter. Accordingly, this Court heard the arguments on merits. 9. Sri.Santoshkumar M. Patil, on behalf of revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5093 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2020 resulting in miscarriage of justice and hence, sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Sri.Ashok Angadi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.M.Kalwad, counsel representing the respondent supports the impugned orders. 11. Having heard the arguments of the parties, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 12. In the case on hand, issuance of the cheque and signatures found there in are not in dispute. In fact, DW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted her signatures in the dishonoured cheques. 13. On her behalf, one more witness is also examined as DW2. DW2 is a teacher at Kasage village, Sirsi taluk. She has deposed that complainant misused the cheques. 14. To substantiate the said aspect of the matter, there is no material on record in the form of any criminal complaint that has been lodged by the accused against the complainant. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5093 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2020 15. Further, no normal prudent person would keep quiet if cheques in a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- is misused. Taking note of the same, learned trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused which requires no interference by this Court in this revision petition. 16. Having regard to the cheque amount, imposition of fine amount also does not require any interference. 17. However, the learned Judge has ordered Rs.17,00,000/- as the compensation and there is no order as to remaining sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Complainant did not file any revision seeking enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, sum of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the trial judge, which should be usually appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State also needs to be paid as compensation to the complainant, taking note of the fact that the cheque is in a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- which came to be dishonoured in the month of Feburary-2012. Accordingly, the following order: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5093 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2020 ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Entire fine amount is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 44