- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6995 CRL.RP No. 100386 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100386 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI JOHAR ALI S/O HAJARESAB GOULI AGED: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. YALAVATTI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI RAGHAVENDRA S/O NARAYANA KANKALE AGED: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND PIGMI AGENT, R/O DATTATREYA GUNDI ONI HANGAL, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.C.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS, 2023, SEEKING TO THAT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 07.12.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HANGAL IN CC NO.171/2023, CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2024, PASSED BY THE I ST ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3/2024, OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER MAY BE ACQUITTED FROM THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6995 CRL.RP No. 100386 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Sri Prakash Badiger for Sri M.R. Hiremathad would submit the petitioner is not cooperating to comply the conditions of the interim order and sought for disposal of the petition on merits. 2. Heard Sri Prakash Badiger, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri S.C. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 4. Material on record would reveal that revision petitioner is the accused suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.171/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) and directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as the compensation to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fine amount towards - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6995 CRL.RP No. 100386 of 2024 defraying expenses of the State which confirmed in Crl.A.No.3/2024. 5. Material on record would also disclose that accused has borrowed the money from the complainant and towards the repayment, had issued the cheque bearing No.974019, dated 03.03.2023 in a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Hangal branch which on presentation, came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘account blocked’. There was no compliance to the callings of notice. 6. After due trial, accused has been convicted for the aforesaid offence by the Trial Magistrate taking note of the fact that there was no rebuttal evidence placed on record as accused did not step into the witness box nor answers elicited in the cross-examination of complainant was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption. 7. Order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6995 CRL.RP No. 100386 of 2024 Crl.A.No.3/2024. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 8. Sri Prakash Badiger, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have erred in law in not properly appreciating the material evidence on record especially when the cheque has been dishonoured with an endorsement ‘account blocked’. Therefore, it did not attract the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 9. He would also contend that legal notice also not properly served and therefore, there was no commission of the offence by the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Sri S.C. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6995 CRL.RP No. 100386 of 2024 11. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that cheque marked at Ex. P-1 admittedly belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. The bank endorsement would show that ‘account is blocked’. 13. It is for the accused to explain as to what made him to block the account after issuance of the Ex. P-1. No such materials are forthcoming on record. Suggestion made to the complainant that he has misused the cheque has not been probablized by placing necessary evidence on record. More so, when there is no criminal complaint filed against the complainant for the alleged misuse of the cheque at Ex. P-1 by the accused. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in raising - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6995 CRL.RP No. 100386 of 2024 presumption as is contemplation under Section 139 of N.I. Act which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court which calls no interference before this Court in the light of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh1. 15. Having said thus, imposition of Rs.10,000/- as the fine amount towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law in view of the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 16. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. 1 2023(10) SCC 148 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6995 CRL.RP No. 100386 of 2024 Act, imposing a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- being paid as compensation as against cheque amount of Rs.1,20,000/- fine amount ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. (iii) Time is granted till 31.05.2025 to pay the balance amount by the accused to the complainant. (iv) Failure to pay the compensation, accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20