- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6574 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2019 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.100265 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI KRISHNA S/O. LAXMAN GOJEKAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.53, LAXMI GALLI, HANGARAGA-590008, POST: MANDOLI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR L. GURAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LAXMIKANT K GURAV, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI PUNDALIK GUNDU PATIL AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.580, MAHAVEER NAGAR, PEERANAWADI, BELAGAVI-590014. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.H. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.357/2018 DATED 13/08/2019 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JMFC-VII COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.734/2017 DATED 30/11/2018 MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED MAY KINDLY BE ACQUITTED IN THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, BY ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.22 14:44:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6574 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Shridhar K. Gurav, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None present on behalf of the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.734/2017 dated 30.11.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine of Rs.15,53,000/-, out of which sum of Rs.15,50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.3,000/- is ordered to be paid towards defraying expenses of the State. 3. Validity of the said conviction order is challenged by the accused in Crl.A.No.357/2018 dated 13.08.2019. Said appeal came to be dismissed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6574 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2019 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1. 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 accused approached the complainant in the year 2015 and offered to sell his share of 20 guntas of land bearing revenue Sy.No.235/2 of Hangraga village and obtained sum of Rs.14,95,000/- as advance sale consideration and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration. 4.2. An agreement came into effect in this regard dated 17.04.2015. However, the sale transaction could not be completed and towards repayment of the advance sale consideration, accused said to have issued a cheque bearing No.019938 dated 29.06.2016 in a sum of Rs.14,95,000/- drawn on Federal Bank, Belagavi. Said cheque on presentation, came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, complainant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6574 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2019 issued a legal notice. There was no compliance to the callings of the notice and accused failed to receive the notice. As such, action was sought by the complainant against the accused. 5. Learned Trial Magistrate after due trial, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act noting that presumption raised in favour of the complainant, did not get rebutted inasmuch as accused failed to appear before the Court and lead the evidence. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.357/2018. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 13.08.2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6574 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2019 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the answer elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.1 was sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant as is held in the case of Rohit Bhai Jeevanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarath and Another reported in AIR 2019 SC 1876 and same has been ignored by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the impugned judgment which has been mechanically accepted by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. None appears for the respondent. 11. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6574 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2019 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P.1 – cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. Agreement to sell is marked at Ex.P.7. 13. No doubt, in the detailed cross-examination, running into several pages, suggestions have been put to the complainant by the accused to probabilise that cheque was not given towards repayment of the advance amount. But those suggestions have been denied by the complainant. 14. In fact, in the light of the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in the absence of any application filed by the accused under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Others v. Union of India & Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, (though referred, but did not adhere to the same by the learned Trial Magistrate) permission to cross- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6574 CRL.RP No. 100265 of 2019 examine P.W.1, ought not to have been granted by the learned Trial Magistrate. 15. However, in the detailed cross-examination, no useful material is elicited so as to disbelieve the case of the complainant nor to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 16. Taking note of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that revision petition has no merit to upset the findings recorded by both the Courts. 17. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 30