- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7013 CRL.RP No. 100097 of 2025 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. 100097 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI MARUTI SHANKAR KURBAR AGE: 43 YEARS OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O H NO 2965, SHIVAMNAGAR HINDALAGA TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI.590108 …PETITIONER (BY MISS. AMRUTHA ALLANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHANTESH S HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: RAJAMUDRA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD R/BY ITS RECOVERY CLERK SHRI PRAHALAD SAHADEV TARLE, AGED: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE. R/O KHADAK GALLI BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 R/W 442 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259/2024 DATED ON 14.11.2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST AND SESSION JUDGE BELAGAVI AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO. 120/2022 DATED ON 06.08.2024 PASSED BY THE V-J.M.F.C. BELAGAVI, AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7013 CRL.RP No. 100097 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Miss Amrutha Allannavar, counsel for Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, advocate for petitioner and Smt.Geetha K.M. @ Pawar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Miss.Amrutha would submit that despite best advice, revision petitioner failed to comply the conditions of interim order and requested the Court to permit the counsel to address the arguments on merits of the matter. 3. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.120/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act (hereinafter for short ’NI Act’) and ordered to pay the fine of Rs.50,000/- which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.259/2024. 4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7013 CRL.RP No. 100097 of 2025 4.1 Complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner by the complainant alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after for short ‘NI Act’) by contending that accused borrowed sum of Rs.25,000/-. Accused had agreed to repay the same within a short span of time but failed to do so. 4.2 Towards the repayment of the hand loan amount of Rs.25,000/-, accused issued a cheque bearing No.028534 for Rs.45,453/- dated 24.01.2022, drawn on Federal Bank, Ganeshpur Branch, Belgaum. But, when complainant presented the cheque for encashment through its banker, cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ” Funds Insufficient”. 4.3 There was no compliance to the callings of the legal notice nor there reply. Therefore, complainant sought for action against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7013 CRL.RP No. 100097 of 2025 4.4 Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 4.5 There was no defense evidence placed on record and in the accused statement, the incriminating materials were denied. 4.6 Thereafter, learned trial judge invoking the presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act nor accused was available for recording the accused statement. 4.7 Thereafter, learned trial judge heard the arguments of counsel for complainant and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and imposed fine of Rs. 50,000/- which is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has filed appeal in Crl.A.No.259/2024. Learned Judge in the First - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7013 CRL.RP No. 100097 of 2025 Appellate Court after securing the records heard the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 4.11.2024, dismissed the appeal. 6. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court. 7. Miss Amrutha Allannavar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that learned judge in the First Appellant Court mechanically upheld the incorrect order which has further resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, Smt.Geetha K.M. @ Pawar, counsel supports the impugned orders. 9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the accused deliberately failed to appear before the trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7013 CRL.RP No. 100097 of 2025 11. In fact, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India and others1, it is the defense evidence that should have commenced in the trial at the first instance and not the commencement of the trial by examining the complainant. 12. Absolutely no defense is made out and no application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act came to be filed. 13. Therefore, contentions now urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that there was no sufficient opportunity for the revision petitioner to contest the matter and thus resulted in principles of fair justice being not followed by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice cannot be countenanced in law. 14. Further, since the complainant enjoyed the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act and there was no 1 (2014) 5 SCC 590 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7013 CRL.RP No. 100097 of 2025 reply to the notice which has been issued by the complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter does not require any further interference by this Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Time is extended till 31.05.2025 for the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount of Rs.50,000/-. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30