- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6653 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100192 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. RAM S/O. SINNAPA HEBBALKAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 280/CCB, 30 OPP.TO SHIVAJI GARDEN, SANT SENA ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MADAN S/O. APPU DESAI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAMNAGAR, SUPA ROAD, TQ. JOIDA, DIST. KARWAR-581453. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASAD PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2023 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BELAGAVI THEREBY DISMISSED THE CRL.APPEAL NO. 273/2021 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 17.11.2021 PASSED BY VII J.M.F.C. BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO. 273/2019 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT BY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6653 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Sri.Ram P. Ghorpade leaned counsel submits the revision petitioner is not interested in settling the matter amicably and requested the Court to dispose of the matter on merits. 2. Heard Sri.Ram P. Ghorpade, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Prasad Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.273/2019 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.3,35,000/- of which sum of Rs.3,30,000/- as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.273/2019. 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6653 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2023 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 5. Complaint averments would reveal that accused has approached a complainant requesting for hand loan in sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which was lent by the complainant. Towards the repayment of the same, accused issued a cheque bearing No.783402 drawn on UCCO Bank, Belagavi, in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonored. 6. There is no compliance to the callings to the legal notice and therefore, action was sought. 7. After due trial, accused was convicted for the aforesaid offence. There was no oral evidence placed on record to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6653 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2023 8. However, certified copy of the order passed in C.C.No.487/2019 and C.C.No.414/2019 and RTC extract pertaining to complainant was placed on record as Ex.D.1 to 5. 9. Learned trial Judge after considering the probative value material evidence placed by both the parties, convicted accused. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Sri.Ram P Ghorpade, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that material available on record, was sufficient enough to establish that complainant is a habitual in getting the cheques extracted from the people like accused and filed false cases and which has been marked before the Court vide Exs.P.1 and P.2 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6653 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2023 therefore, complainant is a money lender and sought for allowing revision petition. 12. Per contra, Sri.Prasad Patil, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material available on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of material available on record, it seen that the cheque in question marked at Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. How the cheque at Ex.P.1 has reached the hands of the complainant is a question that is to be answered by the accused. To answer the same, he did not step into the witness box. 15. In the cross examination of P.W.1 at page No.6 in para No.1, he has deposed that P.W.1 having income of Rs.20,000/- per month and annual income is about Rs.10,00,000. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6653 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2023 16. Thus, presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, is rightly raised on behalf of the complainant by the learned trial Judge. 17. Even in the absence of oral evidence placed on record by the accused, the accused can rebut the presumption available with a complainant as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Bhai Jeevanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarath and Another1. 18. However, material on record would go to show that the cross examination of PW.1 was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I.Act, is the finding recorded by both the Courts. 19. This Court in the revisional jurisdiction cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter especially in the absence of any oral evidence placed on record. 1 AIR 2019 SC 1876 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6653 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2023 20. Moreover, the documents filed by the accused were not sufficient enough to hold that the complainant did not have the lending capacity. Ex.D.1 and D.2 are the certified copies. Accordingly, conviction order needs to be maintained. 21. However, imposition Rs.5,000/- as fine towards the defraying expenses of the State needs to be set aside. 22. Having regard to the fact that lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 23. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the fine amount is reduced to Rs.3,35,000/- to Rs.3,30,000/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.3,30,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6653 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2023 (iv) Time is extended till 15.05.2025 for payment of the balance amount. (v) Failure to pay the balance amount, accused/revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (vi) Fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 15