- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 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. 100453 OF 2023 (397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SMT. PREETHI W/O. SANTOSH NAYAK, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BRAHAMANGALLI ROAD, TQ. KARWAR, DIST. KARWAR-581301. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANTOSH NARGUND, ADVOCATE) AND: FAKKIRAPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA GUDIKERI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BAICHAVALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADV. FOR SHRI S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN CRL.A.NO.33/2023 DATED 10.07.2023, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI, UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.291/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC-HANGAL, DATED 20.02.2023, AND ORDER OF SENTENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N. I. ACT, BE ACQUITTED TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED, FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGE, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri Santosh Naragund, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Smt.Anusha Sangami appearing through video conference for Sri S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Sri Santosh Naragund learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not cooperating to comply with the conditions of the interim order and 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 revision petition is filed by the petitioner accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1971 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.291/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, (“the Trial Court” for short), - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act” for short), which was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (“the First Appellate Court” for short) in Crl.A.No.33/2023 by order dated 10.07.2023. 5. Material on record clearly reveals that the revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.291/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections under Section 138 of NI Act and was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- 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.33/2023. 6. Material on record would also disclose that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and towards the repayment, he had issued the cheque and on being presentation of the same, it was dishonored with an endorsement ‘Account Blocked’. There was no compliance to the callings of notice. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 7. After due trial, accused has been convicted for the aforesaid offence by the Trial Court. The order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.33/2023. Hence, the petitioner preferred this criminal revision petition before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the 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 dishonored with an endorsement ‘Account Blocked’. Therefore, the act of the accused did not attract the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the legal notice also not properly served on the accused and therefore, there was no commission of the offence by the accused under Section 138 of NI Act, resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 10. Per contra, Smt. Anusha Sangami, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 11. On perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that Ex.P.1 - cheque admittedly belongs to the petitioner – accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. The Bank endorsement would show that account is blocked. Before the Trial Court, the issuance of cheque and signature found therein was not disputed by him. Therefore it is for the accused to explain as to what made him to block the account 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 the complainant has misused the cheque has not been probablized by placing necessary evidence on record. It is further contention of the accused that, he has not filed any complaint against the complainant for the alleged misuse of the cheque at Ex. P-1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 12. 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: "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." 13. 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 1 (2001) 9 SCC 631 2 (2023) 6 SCC 768 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 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 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." 14. 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." 15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in raising presumption as is contemplation under Section 139 of NI Act, which has been rightly re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court, which calls no interference before this Court in the light of the 3 (2008) 9 SCC 475 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh4. 16. 16. Having said thus, imposition of Rs.2,000/- 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. 17. 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.6,50,000/- being paid as compensation as against cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, 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. 4 2023 (10) SCC 148 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8008 CRL.RP No. 100453 of 2023 (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.: 47