- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6529 CRL.RP No. 100137 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100137 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. G.B. HEBBALLI AND CO., MYADAR ONI, 1ST MAIN, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580009, R/BY. PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 (THEN PARTNERS OF PETITIONER NO.1 FIRM) 2. SATYANARAYANA S/O. SOMESHWARAPPA HONNIHOLLI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BESIDES GRAMADEVATA TEMPLE, SATEBEDI, KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-580001. 3. SURESH S/O. SOMESHWARAPPA HONNIHOLLI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BESIDES GRAMADEVATA TEMPLE, SATEBEDI, KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SANTOSH P. ABBIGERI LR OF P.M. ABBIGERI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. HUBBALLI-580009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SADASHIV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:34:37 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6529 CRL.RP No. 100137 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.120/2015 DATED 22.04.2019 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC-II COURT, HUBBALLI IN C.C. NO.699/2007 DATED 17.10.2015 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY. 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.M.L.Vanti, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 3. The revision petitioners are the accused, who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’) in C.C.No.699/2007 which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.120/2015. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6529 CRL.RP No. 100137 of 2019 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1 A private 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, by contending that accused persons have received hand loan in a sum Rs.6,50,000/- and towards the repayment of the same, issued cheque bearing No.807380 dated 15.09.2006 in a sum of Rs.6,50,000 was tendered. The same on presentation came to be dishonored with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ on 26.10.2006. 4.2 There is no compliance to the callings of the legal notice resulting in filing the criminal complaint seeking action. 4.3 After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, by raising the presumption in favour of the complainant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6529 CRL.RP No. 100137 of 2019 under Section 139 of N.I. Act and holding that the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3 was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption. 4.4 Thereafter accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.120/2015. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records hearing the arguments in detail re-appreciated the material on record and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 6. Sri.M.L.Vanti, learned counsel for the revision petitioner iterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the probative value of the oral testimony of DWs 1 to 3 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6529 CRL.RP No. 100137 of 2019 7. Counsel for the respondent being absent, this Court has perused the material on record in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that the cheque in question belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the revision petitioner. Since there is no dispute as to the issuance of cheque and signature found therein and cheque has been dishonored for want of funds, in the absence of any compliance to the callings of legal notice, trial Court rightly raised the presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. 9. However, such a presumption is a rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the presumption, three witnesses have been examined as DWs.1 to 3. 10. Learned trial judge did bestow his best attention to the oral testimony of DW1 to DW3 in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6529 CRL.RP No. 100137 of 2019 impugned judgment in paragraph No.22. Ex.D1 being a statement of account and exhibit D2 being the copy of the notice marked on behalf of the accused was also taken into consideration by the learned trial judge. DW.1 is second accused, DW2 is Satish Gopal and accused No.3. In their cross examination, it is elicited that accused had obtained loan from several people as they have suffered loss in the petrol bunk business. They also admit about the pendency of several criminal cases against them for the dishonour of cheques in the court of Hubballi, Navalgund and Kundagol. 11. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court did consider the appeal grounds in the light of arguments put forward on behalf of the revision petitioner and after considering such necessary details, passed a detailed judgment not only upheld the reasons recorded by trial Magistrate, but also supplemented few more reasons to sustain the order of conviction. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6529 CRL.RP No. 100137 of 2019 12. This Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction is unable to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that there is no proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that revision petitioners have not made out any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds for interfering with the order of conviction. 14. However, imposing sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law as lis is Privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 15. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER (i) 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 in a sum of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6529 CRL.RP No. 100137 of 2019 Rs.8,10,000/- is reduced to sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Entire sum of Rs.8,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to be complainant. Time is extended till 15.05.2020 for payment of balance of fine amount. (iii) Fine amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is hereby set aside. (iv) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order for issue of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC para Nos.1 to 6 HMB-7 to end CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 44