- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6018 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100194 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI HULAGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA JOGANNAVAR, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. DINDUR, TAL. GAJENDRAGAD, DIST. GADAG-582114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHARAD MALGOUND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: MANJUNATH S/O. DEVAPPA KADABALAKATTI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BAR BENDER, R/O. CHILGERI, TQ. GAJENDRAGAD, DIST. GADAG-582114. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIVEK JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.S. KAMBLE, ADVOCATE AND SRI M.V. THAVANSHI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., 1973, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/03/2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.24/2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT GADAG, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 13/04/2023 IN C.C. NO.241/2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., RON FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT AND SET THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AT LIBERTY IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.09 15:58:03 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6018 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Sharad M. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Vivek Jain, learned counsel for Sri.G.S.Kamble and Sri.M.V.Thavanshi, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’) and ordered to be pay the fine of Rs.4,23,500/- of which sum of Rs.4,18,500/- is to be paid as compensation and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State confirmed in Crl.A.No.24/2023 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, contending that accused came - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6018 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2024 in contact with him through Devendrappa Kamatar and there was a hand loan transaction, wherein accused demanded Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant which was lent on 05.07.2018 and towards the repayment of the same, accused issued a cheque bearing No.785969 dated 29.12.2018 in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonored and there was no compliance of calling of notice and therefore, sought for action. 4. Accused stood for trial and after due trial, learned trial Judge noticing the rebuttal evidence placed record on behalf of the accused by way of oral testimony of three witnesses, who are examined as DWs.1 to 3 was not sufficient, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court Crl.A.No.24/2023. 6. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the arguments of both sides, dismissed the appeal of the accused on merits. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6018 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2024 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 8. Sri.Sharad M. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that the learned trial Judge failed to note the probative of defence evidence, whereunder, presumption raised under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, was substantially rebutted. Therefore, conviction order ought not to have been recorded and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, Sri.Vivek Jain, on behalf of respondent supports the impugned judgment. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque is belonging to the accused and the signature found therein is not in dispute. 12. Learned Judge in the trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence placed on behalf of the accused in paragraphs Nos.24 and 25 which reads as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6018 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2024 “24. It is the defence of the accused that, one Devendrappa has taken the cheque forcefully from his pocket and for which he filed the complaint before Gajendragad police. But in support his contention, he has not furnished any documents before this Court. Accused neither placed on record any complaint made to the police not to the bank in the said regard. It is well settled that bare statements and story-telling would not help the accused to rebut the presumption raised under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. Learned Counsel for accused argued that, Devendrappa Kamatar has forcebly taken the four cheques from the pocket of the accused and in support of his arguments he relied upon the oral evidence of DW-1 and DW-2. On perusal of records, it reveals that, said Devendrappa Kamatar examined before this Court as PW-2. But during his cross examination, learned Counsel for Complainant even remotedly not posed single question to the said Devendrappa Kamatar/PW-2 regarding alleged theft or forcebly taken the cheque from the pocket of the accused. He never ask single question regarding the same. All of sudden accused raised the said question at the time of his evidence. As such, sald - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6018 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2024 contention taken by the accused holds no water. 25. On meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act, would be attracted. So, defense taken by the accused has holds no water.” 13. Taking note of the facts that the oral evidence of DWs.1 to 3 was not sufficient to rebut the presumption, learned trial Judge recorded an order of conviction which was rightly re-appreciated and confirmed by the first appellate Court. 14. Having regard to the limited revisinal jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit in to the factual - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6018 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2024 aspects and set aside the order of conviction. Hence, conviction needs to be maintained. 15. Having said thus, sum of Rs.5,000/- is imposed by the trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State which cannot be countenanced in law, as there is no involvement of State machinery in the case on hand as lis is privy to the parties. Therefore, same needs to be set aside. 16. Hence, in view of the forgoing discussion, the following order is passed. ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 138 of the N.I.Act, fine amount ordered learned trial Judge in sum of Rs.4,23,500/- is reduced to Rs.4,18,500/- iii. Entire sum of Rs.4,18,500/- is to be paid as compensation to the complainant. iv. Time is extended to pay the balance fine amount, if any, till 30.04.2025. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6018 CRL.RP No. 100194 of 2024 v. Failure to pay the balance fine amount on or before 30.04.2025, accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Magistrate. vi. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. vii. Fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial Magistrate confirmed by First appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State stands set aside. viii. Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14