- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6880 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2024 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.100144 OF 2024 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. VIJABARADDY S/O. KISHWARADDI LINGARADDI (ABBIGERI) AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. JAGAPUR-582207, TQ. NARAGUND, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SHARANABASAPPA S/O. NIMBAPPA KOPPAD AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHIKKAMANNUR-582209, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHUBENDU A. AKALAWADI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.05.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RON IN CC NO.655/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG IN CRL.APPEAL NO.26/2023 DATED 02.03.2024 AND TO ACQUIT THE REV. PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6880 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.H.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Shubendu A. Akalawadi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.655/2019 dated 30.05.2023 and ordered to pay fine in a sum of Rs.2,55,000/-, out of which sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.26/2023. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6880 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2024 A complaint came to be lodged against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused borrowed hand loan in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and towards repayment, cheque bearing No.921178 dated 05.02.2019 came to be issued in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Gadag Branch. Said cheque on presentation returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, legal notice was issued by the complainant and same was not complied. Therefore, complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. Accused appeared before the Court and took the plea that he has lost the cheque and therefore, he had given complaint to the police on 27.06.2016 which was registered in LPT No.147/2016 and there was a misuse of the cheque. The complaint is marked at Ex.D.2 and police endorsement at Ex.D.1 and reply sent to the legal notice is marked as Ex.D.3. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6880 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2024 5. It is pertinent to note that there is no acknowledgment produced for having sent Ex.D.3 to the complainant. 6. Since the cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused and same is dishonored for want of funds, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption in favour of the complainant and convicting the accused. 7. Validity of the said judgment was questioned before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.26/2023. 8. Said appeal came to be dismissed by considered judgment dated 02.03.2024. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that since at an undisputed point of time, Exs.D.1 and D.2 came into existence wherein accused has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6880 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2024 specifically stated that he has lost the cheque while proceeding on the motorcycle on account of heavy blow of wind, accused ought not to have been convicted and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, in the cross-examination of D.W.1, he clearly admits that, along with the cheque, his phone had also fallen away on account of heavy blow of wind which is highly improbable. 14. Further, if the accused has lodged a complaint to the police as Ex.D.2 which was registered in Ex.D.1, nothing prevented the accused to issue ‘stop payment’ instruction to the banker as well. No such attempt is made and admittedly, cheque came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6880 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2024 15. Further, taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption in favour of the complainant as is available under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in convicting the accused. 16. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it has been suggested that lost cheque has been misused which is denied. No attempt is made by the accused to request the police to further investigate the matter after he came to know that one of the lost cheques has been misused by the complainant. 17. No normal prudent person would keep quiet and he has already lodged a complaint with the police that he has lost the cheque and same has been misused. 18. All these aspects of the matter would support in maintaining the order of the conviction for the offence - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6880 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2024 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 19. Having said so, learned Trial Magistrate is not justified in imposing sum of Rs.5,000/- as the fine amount towards defraying expenses of the State as lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 20. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- is reduced to sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. iii. Entire sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6880 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2024 iv. Fine amount in a sum 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. v. Failure to pay the fine amount on or before 31.05.2025, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. 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.: 13