- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7000 CRL.RP No. 100096 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. 100096 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: ROHAN S/O SURYAKANT URANKAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O JAYNAGAR BELAGAVI, PIN CODE 590008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: VEDANT MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., #478, AMRUT PLAZA MAIN ROAD, VADGAON BELAGAVI REPRESENTATIVE BY IS RECOVER OFFICER/CLERK SHRI BALWANT S/O LAXMAN DESAI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O UCHAGAON BELAGAVI-5900101. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 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.330/2024 DATED ON 07.01.2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, PASSED BY THE X ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BELAGAVI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CC NO.544/2018 DATED ON 28.08.2024 PASSED BY THE VIII JMFC BELAGAVI, AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7000 CRL.RP No. 100096 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard, Miss Amrutha Aallannavar, counsel for Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, advocate for petitioner and respondent served with notice and remained absent. 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. Facts in brief 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. Accused and his mother by name Smt.Suryakanth Urankar borrowed hand loan in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Same is not repaid. After demand a cheque bearing No.012950 dated 13.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,14,277/- came to be issued by the accused, which on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7000 CRL.RP No. 100096 of 2025 presentation came to be dishonoured. There was no compliance to the calling of notice and notice is returned with an endorsement ‘left’. Therefore, action was sought. 3.2 Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India and others1, completed the necessary formalities and after due trial convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, noting that there was no rebuttal evidence placed on record. 4. In order to rebut the presumption, accused got examined himself as DW1. Learned trial Magistrate took into consideration the cross examination of DW-1 wherein, he has admitted that he came to know about the pendency of the case in the year 2018. Loan application confronted to him in the cross examination is admitted and it was 1 (2014) 5 SCC 590 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7000 CRL.RP No. 100096 of 2025 marked at Ex.P14. Accused admitted that address shown in the application has Kadebazar, Belagavi belongs to him. 5. Therefore, since the liability being admitted, it was for the accused to show why he did not repaid the amount. If repaid the loan, amount how he repaid the amount and why the cheque is allowed to be retained with the respondent-Society. In the absence of such raised the presumption in favour of the Society and rightly convicted the accused and directed him to pay fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,14,277/- of which compensation in a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- and sum of Rs.277/- was ordered to be paid as defraying expenses of the State. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re- appreciated the material on record and dismissed the appeal of the accused. 7. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7000 CRL.RP No. 100096 of 2025 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Miss.Amrutha, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused and sought for admitting revision petition for further consideration. 9. Having heard the arguments of revision petitioner, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque in question marked at Ex.P1 is belonging to the accused and there is no dispute as to the signature of the accused therein. Cheque is admittedly dishonored for want of funds. 11. Admittedly the accused borrowed the money from the complainant society and failed to repay the same. Taking note of these aspects of the matter including the fact that there was no compliance to the callings of notice, learned trial judge rightly raised the presumption following the dictum of Indian bank association supra - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7000 CRL.RP No. 100096 of 2025 and rightly convicted the accused which has been properly re-appreciated while dismissing the appeal of the accused. 12. As such, this Court in this revision does not find any good grounds to interfere in the order of conviction. 13. However, having regard to the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and there is no State machinery involved, imposing fine of Rs.277/- towards the defraying expense of the State cannot be countenanced in law. 14. Accordingly, following order is passed: 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.1,14,277/- is reduced to Rs.1,14,000/- and the same is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7000 CRL.RP No. 100096 of 2025 (iii) Time is extended till 31.05.2025 for payment of the balance compensation amount. (iv) Failure to pay the compensation amount, the accused is directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by trial Magistrate. (v) Sum of Rs.277/- 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.: 29