- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7002 CRL.RP No. 100469 of 2024 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. 100469 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: MARTHAND G KSHIRSAGAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NEW CONTONMENT CHAWAL CAMP, BELAGAVI-590003. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AMRUTHA AALLANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE BELGAUM MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., ANSURKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI, R/BY ITS RECOVER OFFICER SHRI LAXMAN IRAPPA NESARKAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. DHANUSHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. (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.317/2024 DATED ON 26.11.2024 PASSED BY THE X ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BELGAUM AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CC NO.478/2022 DATED 09.08.2024 PASSED BY THE VII JMFC BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT, AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7002 CRL.RP No. 100469 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSIOIN, 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, advocate for petitioner and Miss.Priyanka for Smt./Kum.Dhanushree, advocate for Sri.Shreevatsa Hegde, 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.478/2022 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.1,34,200/- of which sum of Rs.1,32,200/- as compensation to the complainant and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7002 CRL.RP No. 100469 of 2024 balance sum of Rs.2,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State, which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.317/2024. 4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petitioner are as under.: 4.1 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. Complaint averments would further reveal that the accused borrowed money from the complainant- Society on 27.08.2019 in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards the repayment, cheque was issued on 17.06.2022. Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonoured and therefore the action was sought as there was no compliance to the callings of the legal notice. 4.2 Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Indian Bank Association and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7002 CRL.RP No. 100469 of 2024 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. 4.3 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re- appreciated the material on record and dismissed the appeal of the accused. 4.4 Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court. 5. 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. 1 (2014) 5 SCC 590 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7002 CRL.RP No. 100469 of 2024 6. Per contra, on behalf of respondents Smt./Kum.Dhanushree, supports the impugned judgments. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 8. 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. 9. Material on record disclose that admittedly the accused borrowed the money from the complainant society and failed to repay the same. 10. 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 and rightly convicted the accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7002 CRL.RP No. 100469 of 2024 which has been properly re-appreciated while dismissing the appeal of the accused. 11. As such, this Court in this revision does not find any good grounds to interfere in the order of conviction. 12. 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.2,000/- towards the defraying expense of the State cannot be countenanced in law. 13. 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.1,34,200/- is reduced to Rs.1,32,200/- and the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7002 CRL.RP No. 100469 of 2024 same is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. (iii) Time is extended till 31.05.2025 for payment of the balance fine amount. (iv) 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. (v) 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.: 26