- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6555 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2025 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.100053 OF 2025 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: D. MARIYAPPA S/O. DODDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED MESCOM, R/O. ANAVATTI, SORABA TALUK, NOW R/O. SANATANA NILAYA, ASHWATH NAGAR, 5TH CROSS, KRISHANAMATA ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BHAGAWAN S/O. MAILA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MENASI VILLAGE, SIDDAPUR TALUK, TQ. SIDDAPUR, DIST. U.K.-581355. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAYAK B. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.09.2023, PASSED BY I ADDL.DIST. AND SESSION JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.5084/2023 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21.07.2023, PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I CLASS AT SIDDAPUR IN CC NO.1267/2014 AND THEREBY THE PETITIONER CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SENTENCE TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,65,000/- BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.25 14:50:00 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6555 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Lingesh V. Kattemane, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vinayak B. Hedge, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Though matter is listed for orders on condonation of delay of 69 days in filing revision petition, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has failed to comply with the conditions of interim order datd 25.02.2025, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.Lingesh submits that despite best efforts, the petitioner is not cooperating in complying the conditions of the interim order granted by this Cour. He would further submits that he may be permitted to address the arguments on merits. 4. Accepting his submission, matter is heard on merits. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6555 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2025 5. There is a delay of 69 days in filing the revision petition and the same is condoned by accepting the reasons assigned in the affidavit. 6. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I. Act’) in C.C.No.1267/2014 and order to pay fine of Rs.1,65,000/- and out of which sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is to be paid as compensation and balance amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State. 7. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 7.1. Upon the complaint lodged by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.PC, allegeing the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that towards the repayment of the hand loan, accused issued a cheque - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6555 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2025 bearing No.463754 drawn on Pragathi Grameena Bank, Anavatti branch in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’, the demand made in the legal notice being not complied, complainant sought for action against the accused. 7.2 The learned trial Magistrate after due trial, convicted the accused taking note of the answer obtained in the cross examination that accused is facing criminal case in CC No.119/2015 for dishonour of the cheque filed by Sri. H.C.Thippeswamy. Accused admitted that, address of the accused mentioned in the said case is the same address of the accused that has been mentioned in the present legal notice. 7.3 Therefore, the Trial Magistrate rejected the defence that there is no proper service of notice and rightly raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and convicted the accused. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6555 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2025 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused failed in appeal which was dismissed by a considered judgment dated 21.09.2023 in Crl.A.No.5084/2023. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court. 9. Sri Lingesh V. Kattemane, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Sri Vinayak Hegde, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 11. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 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. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6555 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2025 13. Admittedly, cheque came to be dishonoured for want of funds. There was no compliance to the callings of notice. Defence of the accused is that the notice was not served on him. But in his cross-examination, accused admits that address found in the returned cover is the same address in respect of another criminal case filed by Tippeswamy in Soraba Court wherein the notice was served on the same address. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate was thus justified in raising the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which stood un-rebutted. 15. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate re-appreciated and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this revision petition. 16. Taking note of the fact that a sum of Rs.15,000/- is imposed towards defraying expenses of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6555 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2025 State by the Trial Magistrate which was confirmed, this Court is of the considered opinion that since lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, same needs to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, in view of the forgoing discussion, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, fine amount of Rs.1,65,000/- is reduced to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. (iv) Time is extended till 15th of May, 2025 for payment of the balance fine amount. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6555 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2025 (v) Failure to pay the balance fine amount, accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (vi) A sum of Rs.15,000/- ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB-upto para 7.2 NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 5