- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6882 CRL.RP No. 100028 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100028 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: UDAYKUMAR SHETTY S/O. GOPALA SHETTY, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. RETD. BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. RANEBENNUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S. NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. ESHWARAPPA YELI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI. …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 ORDER PASSED BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRL.A.NO.27/2015, DATED 13.12.2018 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, BYADAGI IN C.C.NO.23/2008 OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT, DATED 04.03.2015 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6882 CRL.RP No. 100028 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Chandrashekhar S. Nagashetti, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Respondent though served, remained absent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.23/2008 dated 04.03.2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- and sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State with default sentence of three months imprisonment which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.27/2015 dated 13.12.2018. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for 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 the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accused being the employee of the Syndicate Bank, got - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6882 CRL.RP No. 100028 of 2019 acquaintance with the complainant and borrowed the money to clear the family necessities in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accused agreed to repay the same and towards repayment, he issued a cheque bearing No.136857 dated 13.12.2007 drawn on Syndicate Bank in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Said cheque on presentation, came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘account closed’. Thereafter, legal notice came to be issued. There was no compliance to the callings of the legal notice. Therefore, sought for action against the accused. 4. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as accused failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. 5. Learned Trial Magistrate followed the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa v. Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898, while rising the presumption against the complainant. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6882 CRL.RP No. 100028 of 2019 6. Pertinently, in the case on hand, except the oral testimony of the accused, who is the Manager of the Bank, there is no other material evidence placed on record to rebut the said presumption. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 7. Therefore, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the accused. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence placed on record and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Respondent though served with the notice, remained absent. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6882 CRL.RP No. 100028 of 2019 11. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. Accused is an employee of the Syndicate Bank and knows the consequences of issuing a cheque to the complainant. There is no compliance to the callings of the legal notice. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption as is held in the case of Rangappa v. Mohan as referred to supra. 13. Rebuttal evidence placed on record is in the nature of oral testimony of the revision petitioner himself which is nothing but a self serving testimony which was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. Accordingly, order of conviction needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6882 CRL.RP No. 100028 of 2019 14. Having said so, imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law as lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 15. Accordingly, from the above discussion, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, compensation amount of Rs.2,30,000/-, ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court as compensation to the complainant is maintained. iii. Time is extended to pay the fine amount till 31.05.2025. iv. Failure to pay the compensation amount on or before 31.05.2025, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6882 CRL.RP No. 100028 of 2019 confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. v. Fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24