- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30382 CRL.RP No. 292 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 292 OF 2024 BETWEEN: GANGADHAR B L, S/O B K LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BELAGUMBA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU-572104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH Y L, ADVOCATE AND SMT ARCHITA NAMBIAR, ADVOCATE) AND: RAKESH, S/O SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU-572104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI KISHAN G S, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE , TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.52/2022 REAFFIRMING THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY THE H ONBLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC IN C.C.NO.918/2020.B. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TUMAKURU VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2022 IN C.C.NO.918/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. C. CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.918/2022 DISPOSED ON Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30382 CRL.RP No. 292 of 2024 THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Revision Petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). 2. The petitioner's cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- issued on 10.08.2019 is dishonoured. The complainant - respondent initiated proceeding after fulfilling the requirements under Section 138 of NI Act and contended that the complainant had invested the amount in chit fund of the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the complainant that Rs.2,70,500/- was invested over a period of time from 2016 to 2018. He further submits that the amount invested was not repaid, and towards the discharge of the debt, the petitioner-accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30382 CRL.RP No. 292 of 2024 10.08.2019 and same was dishonoured and the complainant has established the liability and the Trial Court has imposed the penalty. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as on the date of issuance of the cheque, Rs.2,00,000/- was not the liability on the petitioner - accused and the amount due was Rs.1,72,500/- and since the cheque amount is higher than the liability, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is not attracted. 5. Learned counsel would also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Another1 the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sami Labs Limited vs. Mr.M.V Joseph2 and also the judgment of High Court of Kerala in Joseph Sartho vs. G.Gopinathan and Another3. 6. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that fine amount of Rs.3,75,000/- 1 (2023)1 SCC 578 2 Criminal Appeal No.855/2010 3 2008 SCC Online Ker 254 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30382 CRL.RP No. 292 of 2024 imposed on the petitioner - accused for dishonour of cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- is also unreasonably harsh and disproportionate. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - complainant would urge that the respondent has not raised a defence that the cheque amount is higher than the liability. The reply notice issued under Section 138 of NI Act is that of total denial and the petitioner has also raised a contention that the cheques have been stolen and misused. 8. The First Appellate Court has concurred with the finding of the Trial Court. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. From the contentions raised in the petition, the petitioner has admitted the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. However, it is contended that though the petitioner has received Rs.2,62,500/- from the complainant Rs.70,500/- is refunded (as mentioned in the petition). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30382 CRL.RP No. 292 of 2024 submits that from the bank records produced it is Rs.90,500/- that is refunded and the balance due was only Rs.1,72,000/-, though it is wrongly mentioned as Rs.1,92,000/- in the petition. Thus, it is contended that the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is not attracted. 11. It is to be noticed that in the reply, the petitioner has not come out with a fair statement that he has received amount from the complainant. It is not the defence of the petitioner that he has repaid Rs.90,500/-. The contention that the cheque amount is higher than the amount due is taken for first time at the time of cross-examination of the complainant. 12. Since it is noticed that the transaction took place between the complainant and the respondent from 2016 and periodical payments are made by the complainant to the account towards chit fund, it goes without saying that the transaction is a commercial transaction. 13. This being the position, this Court would assume that the accused/petitioner agreed to repay the amount with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30382 CRL.RP No. 292 of 2024 certain interest. This Court is of the view that the amount due as on the date of issuance of cheque would be not less than Rs.2,00,000/- and for this reason, accused has issued a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-. Since the transaction and liability is established, both the Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner. 14. As far as the sentence is concerned, it is noticed that the Trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and out of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.3,75,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- to the Government. 15. This Court after considering the materials on record and also after taking into consideration the technical contentions raised by the petitioner that the cheque amount is higher than the alleged liability and also by taking into consideration the aspect that there is no specific evidence to ascertain as to the rate of interest which was agreed to be paid to the complainant by the petitioner is of the view that the fine amount has to be reduced. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30382 CRL.RP No. 292 of 2024 16. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order and sentence are modified. (iii) The petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- to the complainant. The said amount shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. (iv) The petitioner is granted 45 days time to pay the amount and the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- said to have been deposited before the Trial Court shall be released to the complainant along with the interest accrued if any. In default, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22