- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100016 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI SANTOSH KALAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. PVT. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.541/472, PATIL GALLI, TAL. KANBARGI, BELAGAVI. 590018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: PATSON MULTIPURPOSE SOUHAD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELAGAVI, NO.26, A, WIND, II FLOOR, MAHANTMA GANDHI BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI, R/BY ITS C.E.O. SHRI. SHASHIKANT MARUTI KABBURI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. MG BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI.590009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SOURABH R. MIRJI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 (1) R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2023 IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 221/2022 BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMFC-V BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO. 719/2020 DATED 07.07.2022 FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT, 1881 AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ANY OTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 11:41:23 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Sourabh R. Mirje, representing on behalf of Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.719/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I.Act’) and ordered to pay fine of Rs.7,25,000/- of which, a sum of Rs.7,23,000/- as compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State confirmed in Crl.A.No.221/2022 has preferred this revision petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2024 4. Accused issued a cheque towards the repayment of the loan as a guarantor of the principal borrower, which on presentation, came to be dishonoured. 5. After due trial, he has been convicted noting the fact that he did not choose to place any defence evidence on record. Further, records disclose that despite granting sufficient opportunity, the accused failed to cross- examine the complainant-Sri Shashikant M. Kabburi. 6. Left with no alternative, learned Trial Judge appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, raised the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act and recorded an order of conviction, which was re- appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal. Thereafter, the revision petitioner is before this Court. 7. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for revision petitioner contends that for the liability of the principal - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2024 borrower, present accused-petitioner cannot be penalized and sought for admitting the petition. 8. Sri Sourabh R. Mirje, representing on behalf of Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for respondent opposes the grounds of revision petition. 9. Having heard the arguments, this Court perused the metal on record meticulously. 10. Following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and others1, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed on record learned Trial Magistrate convicting the accused and leaned Judge in the First Appellate Court confirming the same after re-appreciation of the material on record requires no interference by this Court in this revision having regard to the scope of the revisional jurisdiction. 1 (2014) 5 SCC 590 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2024 11. However, on noticing the sentence portion, a sum Rs.2,000/- is ordered to be paid as defraying expenses of the State which needs interference in view of the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery involved. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, fine amount as ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- is reduced to Rs.7,23,000/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.7,23,000/- is order to be paid as compensation to the complainant. (iv) Time is granted to pay the balance amount of compensation till 30th April, 2025, failing which, accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2024 (v) A sum of Rs.2,000/- ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State, is set aside. (vi) The amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27