- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4926 CRL.RP No. 100197 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100197 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MOUNESH S/O. TIPPANNA KARABARI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST AND ORGANIZER IN DHANYA SEEDS COMPANY, RO. MANNAPUR, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: RAJU S/O. RAMAPPA BYADAGI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS, RO. ALADAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8/2020 AND ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HIREKERUR IN C.C.NO.189/2017, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8/2020 DATED 11/09/2020 WHICH HAS CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HIREKERUR IN C.C.NO.189/2017 DATED 13/11/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.03.27 15:29:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4926 CRL.RP No. 100197 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri D.V. Pattar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Vishwanath Hegde for Sri M.H. Patil, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I. Act’) in C.C.No.189/2017 confirmed in Crl.A.No.8/2020. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A private complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and under Section 420 of IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4926 CRL.RP No. 100197 of 2020 3.1 After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and following sentence came to be passed. “The accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act., accordingly acting U/s. 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused is convicted for the said offence. The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of ₹5,000-00 and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Acting under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that the accused shall pay a sum of ₹5,50,000-00 to the complainant as compensation. Bail bond and surety bond of accused stands canceled. The period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be set off since he is under detention since 30-08-2019.” 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4926 CRL.RP No. 100197 of 2020 Crl.A.No.8/2020, which on contest, came to be dismissed by a considered judgment dated 11.09.2020. Thereafter, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Sri D.V. Pattar, learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that revision petitioner is in judicial custody in respect of some other matter and he is not in a position to pay the amount as ordered by this Court while passing the interim order on 03.11.2020. 6. He also submits that he has no further instructions from the petitioner to proceed with the case and therefore, based on the material on record, he seeks permission to address the arguments on merits. He is permitted. 7. This Court heard the arguments of Sri D.V. Pattar. 8. Sri.D.V.Pattar, learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material on record and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4926 CRL.RP No. 100197 of 2020 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders. 10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque belongs to the revision petitioner and signature found there in is not in dispute. 12. Admittedly, cheque came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. There was no compliance to the callings of notice. Therefore, complainant enjoyed the initial presumption as is contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4926 CRL.RP No. 100197 of 2020 13. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the presumption, accused did not choose to examine himself before the Court nor answers are elicited in the cross-examination of the complainant were sufficient so as to disbelieve the case of the complainant. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, order of conviction and sentence needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Grounds urged in the revision petition sans merit. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA,KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 3