- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100428 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI GANESH TRADERS VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI-580020. 2. MURAGESH ]S/O YALLAPPA PUAJR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF SRI. GANESH TRADERS, VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI-580020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHINAMAY G. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH V. BHA, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S TEGGINAMANI SALES CORPORATION REP. BY AUTHORIZED GPA HOLDER PRAKASH S/O MURUGEPPA KOTTARSHETTY AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, M/S. TEGGINAMANI SALES CORPORATION, APMC YARD, HUBBALLI-580025. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.N.HACHINAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ADMIT THE PETITION AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 5016/2023 DATED 30.10.2023 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED I JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 13.02.2023 IN C.C.NO. 305/2020, CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND IMPOSING FINE OF RS. 24,44,200/- IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Chinmay G. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.S.N. Hanchinamani, learned counsel for the respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.305/2020 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981(for short hereinafter ’NI Act’) and ordered to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.24,44,200/- of which Rs.24,39,200/- is to be paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State. 3. Order of conviction and sentence got confirmed in Crl.A.No.5016/2023. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are at most necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1 A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Cr.PC alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that complainant is running the business in the cattle feeds in the name and style of Ms.Tegginamani Sales Corporation. Accused No.2 runs a business in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 name and style of Ganesh traders and he was a regular customer of the complainant who is to purchase cattle feeds. There was an arrangement of supply of the cattle feeds on credit basis. Out of the trust developed between the accused No.2 and the complainant, cattle feeds were supplied between the period 01.04.2019 to 09.11.2019 amounting to sum of Rs.90,54,252/-. Out of the said amount, accused made a part payment in a sum of Rs.71,19,255/- and there was a due of sum of Rs.19,35,000/-. Towards the repayment of that amount, accused issued three cheques amounting to Rs.19,35,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ Notice issued calling upon the accused to make good the amount was not complied nor replied. Therefore, the complainant sought for action against the accused. 5. Accused stood for the trial in CC No.305/2020 and learned trial judge after noting the overall evidence of the complainant and documentary evidence placed on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 record vide Ex.P1 to P21, comprising dishonoured cheques, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, ledger extract, audit report, attested copy of the cheques, raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 6. No doubt, such a presumption is a rebuttal presumption, to rebut the same there was no oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the accused. 7. For the reasons best known to accused, he did not step into the witness box to place on record what is his defence. 8. The suggestions made to the complainant in his cross examination having been denied by the PW1, absolutely there was no rebuttal evidence on record which resulted in conviction of the accused and sentence as referred to supra. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 9. Being aggrieved by same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court, in Crl.A.No.5016/2023. 10. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after considering the case on merits, by judgement dated 30.10.2023 dismissed the appeal of the accused on merits. 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 12. Sri.Chinmay G. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contented that both the Courts have grossly erred in convicting the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per Contra, Sri. H.N.Hanchinmani, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant supports the impugned judgments. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 15. On such perusal of the material on record, purchase of the cattle feed by the present revision petitioner from the respondent-complainant stands established not only by the oral evidence of PW1 but also by placing the Ledger extract and the necessary documents. Payment of Rs. 71,19,255/- having been given reduction to in the account of the revision petitioner establishes the transaction. 16. Admittedly, dishonoured cheques belongs to the accused and signature found there in is not in dispute. Legal notice is not complied nor there is any replay. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial Magistrate rightly raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. No doubt, such a presumption is rebuttable presumption. 17. In order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant, there is no contra evidence placed on record. Answers in the cross examination are not sufficient - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 enough to hold that the presumption in favour of the complainant stood rebutted. 18. Noting these aspects of the matter, order of conviction recorded by trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First appellate Court needs no interference that too in the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the conviction order needs no interference. 19. Having said thus, sum of Rs.5,000/- imposed by trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenance in law having regard to the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and there was no State machinery is involved. 20. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, fine amount of Rs.24,44,200/- is reduced to Rs.24,39,200/- and the same is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. (iii) Sum of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. (iv) Time is extended till 31.05.2025 to pay the balance amount of compensation. (v) Failure to pay the balance amount of compensation would automatically result in undergoing the imprisonment ordered by trial Magistrate. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7052 CRL.RP No. 100428 of 2023 (vi) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification if not already withdrawn. vii) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 47