- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100377 OF 2024 (397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: ANAND LAXMAN GOSAVI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MANGAL APARTMENT, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI YASH R. NADKARNI ADV. FOR SRI VITTHAL S. TELI ADV.) AND: SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CREDIT SOUHARD, SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, UDYAMBHAG BRANCH, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY BASAYYA BABAYYA MATAPATHI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BRANCH MANAGER, R/O. HEBBAL, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591309. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. (SECTION 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54/2024 BY THE XI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND C.C.NO.932/2018 ON THE FILE JMFC VIII BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 11.06.2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54/2024 BY THE XI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI AND JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 30.06.2023 PASSED BY THE JMFC-VIII BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO.932/ 2018 OF CONVICTION FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 AND ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED HEREIN. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri Yash Nadkarni, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Smt.Chetana S. Biraj learned counsel for respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of the interim order and hence, sought for disposal of the petition on merits. 3. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 4. This petition is filed by the petitioner – accused under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.932/2018 by the JMFC-VIII, Belagavi, (“the Trial Court” for short), for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act” for short), which was confirmed by the XI Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, (“the First Appellate Court” for short) in Crl.A.No.54/2024 by order dated 11.06.2024. 5. The Material on record clearly reveals that the revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.932/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and was directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,28,000/- as the compensation to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as fine amount towards defraying expenses of the State which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.54/2024. 6. Further the material on record would clearly demonstrate that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the complainant and the accused executed all the necessary documents in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the said loan amount in installments and accordingly he has repaid the part of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 same loan amount. Later the accused failed to make payment and towards the repayment of the remaining amount, he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.13,18,837. Upon presentation of the said cheque, which came to be dishonored with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. There was no compliance to the callings of notice. 7. After due trial, the petitioner - accused has been convicted for the aforesaid offence by the Trial Court. Taking note of the fact that, there was no rebuttal evidence placed on record, as the accused did not step into the witness box and elicited answers during the cross-examination of complainant. Hence, the Trial Court has drawn presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act. Further, the order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.54/2024. Hence, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 8. Learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have erred in law in not properly appreciating the material evidence on record especially when the cheque has been dishonored with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” in the account of the accused. Therefore, the act of the accused did not attract the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though legal notice was issued, but it was not properly served on the accused and therefore, there was no commission of the offence by the accused under Section 138 of NI Act, which has been resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Smt.Chetana S. Biraj, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 11. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 12. On perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that Ex.P.1 - cheque admittedly belongs to the petitioner – accused and signature found thereon also pertains to the accused. The Bank endorsement would clearly demonstrate that there was “Funds Insufficient” in the account of the accused. Therefore, it is for the accused to explain as to what made him to maintain his account with sufficient funds after issuance of the cheque - Ex.P.1. However, no such materials are forthcoming on record. Only suggestion which was made to the complainant by the accused that he has misused the cheque has not been probablized by placing necessary evidence on record. More so, there is no criminal complaint filed against the complainant for the alleged misuse of the cheque at Ex.P.1 by the accused. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another1 while discussing the scope of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. held at paragraph No.3 as under: 1 (2001) 9 SCC 631 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 "3. xxx xxx xxx. The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Soundirarasu and Others2 at paragraph No.79 held as under: "79. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face 2 (2023) 6 SCC 768 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure." 15. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar3 at paragraph No.16 held as under: "16. xxx xxx xxx. Now it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A Revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular court of appeal." 16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in raising presumption as is contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act, which has been rightly re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court, which calls no interference by 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 Singh4. 17. Having said thus, imposition of Rs.2,000/- as the fine amount towards defraying expenses of the State cannot 3 (2008) 9 SCC 475 4 2023 (10) SCC 148 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8007 CRL.RP No. 100377 of 2024 be countenanced in law in view of the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused ordered by the Trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, imposing a sum of Rs.13.28.000/- being paid as compensation as against cheque amount of Rs.13,18,837/-, fine amount ordered by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. (iii) Time is granted till 31.07.2025 to pay the balance amount by the accused to the complainant. (iv) Failure to pay the compensation amount, accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Court. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51