- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7001 CRL.RP No. 100095 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. 100095 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: PRASAD S/O DHAKALU PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O LAXMI GALLI, SULGA, BELAGAVI-591108. …PETITIONER (BY MISS AMRUTA ALLANNAVAR, ADOCATE FOR SRI. MAHANTESH S HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: KAMDHENU MAHILA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD VENGURLA ROAD SILGA BELAGAVI R/BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI AMEY S/O SHANKAR HANAMAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN SOCIETY, GANESH PURA GALLI, BELAGAVI PIN CODE 591104. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 R/W 442 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO CALL RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330/2023 DATED ON 24.01.2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT PASSE BY THE XI ADDL. DIST SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI AND ALSO SETASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO. 549/2021 DATED ON 08.11.2023 PASSED BY THE VIII 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:7001 CRL.RP No. 100095 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 Aallannavar, counsel for Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, counsel for revision petitioner. Respondent served with notice, remained absent. 2. Miss.Amrutha would submit that despite best advice, revision petitioner failed to comply the conditions of interim order and request the Court to permit the counsel to address the arguments on merits of the matter. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petitioner are as under.: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is the case of the complainant that accused being the member of the society availed personal loan in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and towards the repayment, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7001 CRL.RP No. 100095 of 2025 he had issued a cheque bearing No.485406 dated 30.03.2021 in a sum of Rs.95,579/- which on presentation came to be dishonoured. 3.2 There was no compliance to the callings of notice and therefore trial was held. 3.3 The learned trial Judge following the Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India and others1, recorded the evidence of the complainant by examining the officer of complainant as PW.1 and 15 documents were placed on record which comprised of Resolution copy, cheque, Bank acknowledgement and documents pertaining to loan. 3.4 As against the said evidence, accused got examined himself as DW.1 and his oral evidence was taken into consideration by the learned trial judge by convicting the accused holding that the oral evidence of the accused was not sufficient to rebut the presumption. 1 (2014) 5 SCC 590 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7001 CRL.RP No. 100095 of 2025 3.5 Further, in the cross examination of PW.1, he failed to answer that he had issued the cheque to the complainant and he was liable to pay. Further, in his cross examination, he admits that he was due in a sum of Rs.95,579/- as loan amount and interest. 3.6 Taking note of the same, learned trial judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and ordered the accused to pay sum of Rs.1,05,000/- of which sum of Rs.1,03,000/- as compensation to the complainant and balance amount towards defraying expenses of the State. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.330/2023. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on merits. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is before this Court in this revision. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7001 CRL.RP No. 100095 of 2025 6. Miss.Amrutha learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the oral testimony of the DW1 while holding that accused failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant resulting in miscarriage of the justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Respondent-Society served with notice and remained absent. 8. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this court has perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the cross examination of DW1, he has admitted the liability. 10. Further, he failed to answer that cheque in question was given towards the repayment of the loan amount or not. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7001 CRL.RP No. 100095 of 2025 learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused and grounds urged in the revision are not sufficient to set aside the order of conviction. 11. Having said thus, Sum of Rs.2,000/- imposed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the 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 and the same is to be set aside. 12. Hence, following order; ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, fine amount of Rs.1,05,000/- is reduced to Rs.1,03,000/- and the same is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7001 CRL.RP No. 100095 of 2025 (iii) Time is extended till 31.05.2025 for payment of the balance fine amount. Failure to pay the fine amount, the order of the trial Magistrate directing the accused to undergo imprisonment shall be adhered to by the accused. (iii) Sum of Rs.2,000/- imposed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State stands set aside. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28