- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6570 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100032 OF 2016 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. ANIL S/O. PANDURANG DESHPANDE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. GREEN FILED ENTERPRISES (CORP), MATOSHREE, BUNGALOW ASHOK SOCIETY TEREON, CHINCHAWADI, PUNE-411033, MAHARASHTRA STATE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. DEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SHIVAKUMAR AND COMPANY, R/BY. ITS PARTNER, MR. RAJENDRA ANNARAO DESAI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 1552, ARAVINID COMPLEX SHOP. NO.17, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-02. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT CALL FOR THE PAPERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC BELAGAVI IN CC NO 242/2011 AND IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 137/2014, ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE IXTH ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI.POST THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT (S.J) FOR ADMISSION. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.22 14:43:31 +0530 MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.22 14:44:02 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6570 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Sri.S.B.Deyannavar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that at the instructions of the revision petitioner, joint memo came to be filed but he is not cooperating for the settlement. Therefore, he submits that necessary orders be passed. 2. Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.242/2011 dated 07.10.2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay sum of Rs.5,10,000/-, out of which sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 4. Validity of the said order was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.137/2014 dated 21.12.2015. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6570 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2016 5. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 5.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that complainant is a Class I Electrical Contractor and he came into contact with the accused in respect of execution of the electrical work placed by the accused for commissioning 11KV/110 KV outdoor switchyard and ABB made 11 SF-6 breakers along with other accessories. 5.2. Accused failed to execute the work properly as agreed and towards repayment, issued a cheque bearing No.039914 dated 15.06.2005 in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as he failed to perform the work properly. Said cheque on presentation, came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘exceeds the arrangement’ on 16.08.2005. There was no compliance to the callings of the notice. Therefore, action was sought by the complainant against the accused. 6. After due trial, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6570 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2016 the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. While so convicting the accused, learned Trial Magistrate took into consideration the oral evidence of D.W.1 wherein, he has answered that he has got the documentary evidence to establish that he had completed the work and cheque in question was issued as security and not towards the improper performance of the work order. 8. However, no such documents were placed on record except D.W.1 to 6 which are the correspondence between the accused and the complainant. 9. Learned Trial Magistrate took into consideration the probative value of the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant as well as the accused and has rightly convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.137/2014. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated the material evidence placed on record and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6570 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2016 confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that work order given by the complainant with the accused is no doubt not in dispute. But according to the accused, work order has been properly executed by the accused and therefore, there was no necessity to issue the cheque in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the accused in favour of the complainant. The cheque that has been issued by the accused as security has been misused by the complainant and filed a false case against the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 15. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6570 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2016 16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that cheque marked at Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused is not in dispute. 17. Dishonor of the cheque and non compliance to the callings of the legal notice is also not in dispute. Reply notice marked at Ex.P.7 is sent by the accused wherein it has been contended on behalf of the accused that cheque got dishonored as it has been sent for high value clearance and he had assured the complainant that he would pay the amount subject to return of the cheque but complainant failed to do so. 18. However, in total contrast with the contents of the reply notice, accused deposed before the Court that the work was properly executed as per the work order and after verifying the same, amount was paid to the accused and since the complainant could not pay the balance amount in proper time, materials would not be sent to him for which he has suffered loss and cheque in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- which was given as security has been misused by the complainant. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6570 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2016 19. He also stated that Demand Draft in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been sent by him through courier and same has reached the complainant and courier receipt is marked at Ex.D.5. 20. It is also the contention of the accused that he is prepared to balance sum of Rs.3,00,000/- but complainant failed to receive the same and thus, sought for dismissal of the complaint. 21. It is pertinent to note that such a defence taken by the accused which is in two folds namely discharge of sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and cheque has been misused which was given for security cannot go hand in hand. 22. Moreover, the contents of the reply notice would say that he was ready to pay entire sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant as cheque got dishonored through high value clearance. 23. Both the defences have not been probabilised by the accused by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6570 CRL.RP No. 100032 of 2016 24. Mere furnishing of the receipt by courier company would not ipso facto establish the fact that accused has paid sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as there is no details of the Demand Draft forthcoming by placing the bank records. 25. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated the material evidence placed on record while upholding the order of conviction. 26. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, there is no merit in any one of the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner which would call for interference in this revision petition. 27. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Time is extended till 15.05.2025 to pay the balance amount. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/CT:PA/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25