- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100227 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: M. H. SHIROL AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF MEHIBOOB COCONUT TRADERS, OPP.DURGADEVI TEMPLE, OLD MARKET, MUDDEBIHAL, DIST.BIJAPUR-586212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIRMALA BAVI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PATIL NANDEESH HANAMANTAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI CHANDANA ENTERPRISES, GENERAL MERCHANT AND COMMISSION AGENTS, C.B.S GUNJ, 3RD GATE, GANGAVATHI, DIST.KOPPAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SHIVAYOGAPPA S/O CHANAPPA AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.ARHAL VILLAGE, TQ.GANGAVATHI, DIST.KOPPAL-583227. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOPPAL SITTING AT GANGAVATHI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15/2020 DATED 31.05.2022, AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATHI IN CC NO.176/2018 DATED 01.02.2020 FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard both the parties. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.176/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- out of which sum of Rs.2,45,000/- 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.15/2020. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the commission for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that complainant is a proprietary concern and having its business in the name and style of ‘Sri Chandana Enterprises’. 3.2. Accused being the regular customer of the complainant concern, made a request for supply of goods and believing the words of the accused and also taking note of the fact that he was a regular customer, steamed sona rice of 500 bags each weighing 25 kgs. were supplied by the complainant to the accused and value of the rice was to the tune of Rs.4,71,250/-. 3.3. Accused agreed to pay the same and if there is a delayed repay within 15 days and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24% on the credit amount. 3.4. Towards repayment of the said amount, accused paid sum of Rs.2,70,000/- by bank transfer through RTGS and towards repayment of the amount, accused said to have issued a cheque bearing No.002842 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 07.09.2017 which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, legal notice under Section 138(b) was sent to the accused through registered post calling upon the accused to repay the same. 3.5. However, said notice was returned unserved with an endorsement that accused refused to receive the same. Thereafter, complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, held due trial, as accused did not plead guilty. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record 15 documentary evidence on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 15. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 6. Detailed cross-examination of P.W.1 did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 7. Contrary to the case of the complainant, there was no oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 8. Learned Trial Magistrate taking note of the original bill having supplied the rice and also taking note of the payment of Rs.2,70,000/- by the accused towards supplied rice through RTGS and for the balance amount, cheque being issued, convicted the accused as referred to supra. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.15/2020. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, reappreciated the material evidence and ultimately, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, supply of rice by the complainant to the accused is established not only by placing the bill but also by necessary transportation document and GST certificate. It is pertinent to note that towards the price of the rice, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 accused paid sum of Rs.2,70,000/- through RTGS through his bank namely SUCO Bank. 16. Further, towards balance amount, accused has issued the cheque which contains his signature. There is no dispute as to the signature found in the cheque and the endorsement issued by the bank is insufficient funds. Admittedly, legal notice is refused by the accused. 17. These factors are sufficient enough to raise the presumption in favour of the complainant as is found under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 18. No doubt, said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, accused did not step into the witness box nor cross- examination of P.W.1 was sufficient enough in raising the presumption available to the complainant. Thus, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 interference that too by this Court in this revisional jurisdiction. 19. Having said thus, learned Trial Magistrate has imposed sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State which cannot be countenanced in law as lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. Accordingly, same needs to be set aside. 20. Hence, 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 in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is reduced to sum of Rs.2,45,000/-. iii. Entire sum of Rs.2,45,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7044 CRL.RP No. 100227 of 2022 iv. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount till 31.05.2025. v. Failure to pay the fine amount on or before 31.05.2025, revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate. vi. Fine amount in a sum of Rs.5,000/- ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate towards defraying expenses of the State is set aside. vii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11