- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100120 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI. YUVARAJ V BHOGAN AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. PLOT NO. 27, NEW SHIVAJI COLONY JYOTI BUILDING, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006 TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SAMARTH URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED PERSON SHRI KUMARGURU S. KHANOLKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE R/O. CLASSIC PLAZA, CTS NO.44/A2, SOMARWAR PETH, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, H.O. SAMARTH SADAN GURUKRUPA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, 1513, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590006. TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397(1) R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF A PROCEEDINGS IN THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.- Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 214/2021, FROM THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND IN THE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 700/2020, FROM THE J.M.F.C.-VI COURT, BELAGAVI AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.02.2022, PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.214/2021, IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C. VI COURT, BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO. 700/2020, DATED 21.09.2021, WHEREIN THE REVISION PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND HE HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF RS. 68,20,00/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.J.S.Shetty learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.700/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’) and ordered to pay fine of Rs.68,20,000/- of which sum of Rs.68,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 3. The said order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.214/2021. 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 5. Complainant is a Society having been registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Accused said to have borrowed Cash Credit loan in a sum Rs.40,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same at the rate of 15% per annum. 6. In respect of the loan transaction, Smt.Bhogan Laxmi Vaijnath and Sri.Bhogan Vikrant Rajaram, stood as guarantors. 7. The outstanding amount in the said loan account with accrued interest worked out Rs.48,37,639/- and towards the repayment of the same, a cheque came to be issued bearing No.173044 on 24.07.2018 in a sum Rs.48,37,639/- which on presentation returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 8. Legal notice was issued demanding the amount covered under the cheque. The accused acknowledged the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 receipt of the legal notice, but failed to comply with the same. Therefore, complainant-Society sought for action against the accused. 9. On completion of necessary formalities and after due trial, the learned trial Magistrate, taking into consideration that the oral testimony of accused, who is examined DW.1 was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.IAct and as against the cheque amount of Rs.48,37,639/- imposed fine amount of Rs.68,20,000/- 10. While imposing the said sum of Rs.68,20,000/-, no special reasons are recorded by the learned trial Magistrate except stating that in spite of the demand in the legal notice, the accused failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque. 11. What are the special reasons for imposing fine amount of Rs.68,20,000/- is not forthcoming in the judgment of the trial Magistrate. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 12. Further, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while confirming the order of conviction and sentence, also did not assigned any special reasons for maintaining the quantum of the compensation amount. 13. Mere reiteration of the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge would not ipso facto discharge the burden of the First Appellate Court in re-appreciating the material evidence on record. 14. However, being aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts, revision petition/accused is before this Court. 15. Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that petitioner is having the means to repay the amount, but his immovable property is not being purchased by the prospective purchaser and since accused is in custody for non-compliance of the conditions of the interim order, to show bonafide intention of accused, wife of the accused has come forward and paid sum Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.04.2025 and Rs.50,000/- transferred through Bank. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 16. Therefore, by reducing the fine amount reasonably, allow the revision petition and grant two months time to repay the balance amount. 17. Per contra Sri.J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent-Society supports the impugned order. 18. He would further contend that apart from the amount covered under the cheque, the petitioner is still due in huge sum. Therefore, no concession can be granted nor time can be extended. 19. Having heard the arguments of both side, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of material on record, admittedly, petitioner is a defaulter insofar as the Cash credit loan. Cheque was issued by the accused in a sum of Rs.48,37,639/- amounting to the total dues as on 24.07.2018. 21. Whether at all respondent-Society is entitled to recover the balance amount by way of interest or not, cannot be decided by this Court in this revision petition as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 it is outside the scope of the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 22. Suffice to say that the cheque is dishonoured, which was given in lieu of the legally recoverable debt, conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, needs no interference by this Court. 23. Insofar as the quantum of fine amount is concerned, non assigning adequate or special reasons by trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court when confronted to Sri.J.S.Shetty, he would submit that the fine amount may be reduced from Rs.68,20,000/- to Rs.55,00,000/-. Said submission is made by him in consultation with the Officer of the Respondent-Society by name Sri.Mohan Kangavakar. 24. His submission is placed on record for the purpose of certainty insofar as lis in the present cheque dishonour cases concerned. 25. Placing the submission on record which is reasonable, the fine amount needs to be reduced from Rs.68,20,000/- to Rs.55,00,000/-. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 26. It is made clear that with the payment of Rs.55,00,000/-, the lis in respect of the present cheque dishonour case prosecution would come to an end. Same shall not be treated as full and final settlement of the account of the petitioner with the respondent-Society. 27. It is also made clear that the respondent- Society after receipt of entire sum of Rs.55,00,000/-, is entitled for recovery of the balance amount, if any, in the Cash Credit account of the revision petitioner with the respondent-Society in accordance with law by filing necessary and appropriate proceedings. 28. It is further made clear that the sum of Rs.55,00,000/- received by the respondent-Society in respect of the present lis shall be given due deduction amount pending in the cash credit account of the revision petitioner with the respondent-Society. 29. With the above observation, the following order is passed: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 ORDER i. Criminal Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the order of conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, fine amount of Rs.68,20,000/- is reduced to Rs.55,00,000/-. iii. Entire sum of Rs.55,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the respondent- Society. iv. After the payment of the entire sum of Rs.55,00,000/- as agreed, the fine amount Rs.20,000/- ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State stands set aside. v. Time is extended till 30.06.2025 for the payment of balance compensation amount of Rs.55,00,000/-. vi. Failure to pay the balance amount of compensation on or before 30.06.2025, revision petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Magistrate. vii. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7125 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2022 viii. In view of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- made by wife of the revision petitioner to the respondent on 28.04.2025 and in view of disposal of the present petition on merits, the accused who is in custody shall ordered to be released forthwith. ix. Learned Additional Registrar General, shall intimate the Jail authority about the disposal of the present case and issue necessary release order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23