- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100132 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NARAYAN S/O. SUBARAO GOVEKAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: JOYTIRLING GALLI, SIDDESHWAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, TALUKA AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: CHIDANAND S/O. RAMAPPA HOSAMANI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.1396, RAMATEERTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.74/2018 DATED 07.07.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.925/2017 DATED 31.01.2018, ON THE FILE OF VII J.M.F.C., BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The revision petitioner is before this Court, challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31.01.2018 passed in C.C. No.925/2017 by the VII JMFC, Belagavi, and the judgment of conviction dated 07.07.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.74/2018 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 3. The brief facts of the case, as set out by the complainant, are as follows: The complainant and the accused are stated to be permanent residents of Belagavi. The accused is employed with KPTCL, Belagavi. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a substantial loan for the marriage of his daughter and subsequently found it difficult to repay the said loan. In order to discharge the said liability, the accused approached the complainant seeking financial assistance. The complainant, having known the accused for several years, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 agreed to extend financial assistance on the assurance that the amount advanced would be repaid within a period of 6 months along with interest. Pursuant thereto, the complainant issued 5 account payee cheques of ₹49,000/- each on various dates and 1 cheque for ₹20,000/-, all drawn on Shri Shantappanna Mirji Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chikkodi, Autonagar Branch, Belagavi. In addition to the cheques, the complainant also paid ₹1,000/- in cash for each cheque of ₹49,000/-. Thus, the complainant is stated to have advanced a total sum of ₹2,70,000/- to the accused. 4. The accused failed to repay the loan within the stipulated period of six months as promised. Thereafter, the accused issued two cheques for a sum of ₹2,00,000/- each, dated 25.08.2013 and 28.08.2013, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch, Belagavi, in favour of the complainant. The complainant, in order to encash the said cheques, presented them through his banker—Shri Shantappanna Mirji Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chikkodi, Autonagar Branch, Belagavi. However, the cheques were dishonoured, and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 complainant received an endorsement stating 'funds insufficient'. 5. On account of the dishonour of the cheques, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 26.09.2013, calling upon him to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques. The said demand notice was duly served on the accused on 03.10.2013. However, the accused neither replied to the notice nor complied with the demand by making payment of the cheque amount. Consequently, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The trial Court, upon taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued summons to the accused. Upon appearance before the trial Court, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 8 documents as Exhibits P1 to P8. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused examined himself as DW.1 in defence. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹4,25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.74/2018. The appellate court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 8. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the complainant has failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt. It is contended that there is no material evidence to show that the petitioner was under any liability to pay the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged payment was made only to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 extend financial assistance, which has not been proved by the complainant. It is submitted that the blank cheques of the accused, which were in the possession of the complainant, have been misused to set up a false claim. There is no corroboration between the alleged advance amount and the cheques in question. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is without evidentiary support. 9. Per contra, Sri Shivraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the cheque and the signature thereon, as that of the accused, are admitted. It is contended that the complainant had the financial capacity to advance a loan of ₹2,70,000/-, and the cheques in question were issued towards repayment of the said loan. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below clearly establish the guilt of the accused. 10. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the cheque in question and the signature of the accused/petitioner thereon are not in dispute. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 The sole defence taken by the accused is that the cheques were issued as security, and that the same have been misused by the complainant. This admission, however, clearly establishes that the petitioner was under an obligation to pay the complainant, towards which the cheques in question were issued. Such an admission substantiates the issuance of cheques towards a legally enforceable debt. Another aspect which assumes relevance is that the accused did not issue any reply to the statutory notice of demand. Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there exists a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused by establishing a probable defence. However, a mere allegation of misuse of the cheque, without supporting material, cannot be accepted as a probable defence sufficient to shift the burden onto the complainant. The Trial Court has also examined the signature of the accused, which stands corroborated by Ex.P8. 11. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly concluded that the accused issued the cheques in question towards repayment - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 of a loan, which constitutes a legally enforceable debt. The dishonour of the said cheques with the endorsement "insufficient funds" clearly attracts the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and perusal of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, is of the considered view that the findings are justified and supported by the evidence on record. No infirmity or perversity is pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court. 12. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has made an alternative submission that 50% of the fine amount has already been deposited, and prays for a further period of 6 months to pay the balance. The period of 6 months as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered reasonable. However, having regard to the fact that the alleged transaction pertains to the year 2012, this Court is of the view that a period of 1 month can be granted to the accused to pay the remaining amount. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. The order of conviction of the trial Court in CC No.925/2017 dated 31.01.2018 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.74/2018 dated 07.07.2018, is hereby confirmed to the extent of recording conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. iii. It is submitted that out of fine amount of ₹4,25,000/-, 50% of the fine amount is deposited. Respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited. Accused is granted one month time for payment of 50% of the fine amount. If default in payment of fine amount, accused-petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. iv. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the trial Court has remitted the amount to the State Treasury and the same is not released in favour of the respondent. The trial Court is directed to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8072 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2018 release the amount in deposit in favour of the respondent/complainant. v. If the fine amount is not paid as directed above, the complainant is granted liberty to move appropriate application before the Trial Court reporting such non-compliance. The Trial Court shall ensure the compliance of this order. The Registry is directed to return Trial Court records along with copy of this order. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1