- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9231 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100144 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. SUDHIR PATIL, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR PATIL ENGG. AND FABRICATORS, S2, GOURI GANESH RESIDENCY, PLOT NO.73/4, ANGOL “C” SCHEME, OPP: H.P. BUILDING, NEAR SBI COLONY, SAMBHAJI ROAD, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SHIVA GENERATORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI. SHIVANAND ISHWARAPPA MUDNUR, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 4920/7, 5TH CROSS CORNER, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(3) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.04.2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.321/2017 BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI WHEREIN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2017 IN CC NO.281/2017 (NEW) [CC 1100/2010 [OLD]] PASSED BY THE V-JMFC, BELAGAVI FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9231 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2017 passed in C.C. No.281/2017 by the learned V-JMFC, Belagavi (for short ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.321/2017 by the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short ‘the appellate Court’). The succinct facts of the complainant’s case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9231 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2022 3. The complainant is carrying on business under the name and style of 'Shiva Generators' at Belagavi. The accused is stated to be a customer of the complainant and is engaged in a fabrication business under the name and style of 'Patil Engineering and Fabricators', also at Belagavi. It is the case of the complainant that a DG welding machine was rented out to the accused at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day, and the accused had initially paid an advance amount of Rs.14,000/-. Towards payment of rent for the said machine, the accused is alleged to have issued a cheque bearing No.297345 dated 19.12.2009, drawn on Canara Bank, Station Road, Belagavi, for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-. Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount. However, the notice was returned with the postal endorsement 'not claimed'. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9231 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2022 4. The complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the N.I. Act’). In support of the case, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 6 documents as Exhibits P1 to P6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, no evidence was adduced by the accused. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,15,000/-, and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.321/2017. The appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9231 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2022 record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the complainant has failed to establish the transaction in question. It is submitted that the amount claimed pertains to hire charges for a DG set, hired at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day. The generator was allegedly taken on hire for 148 days, thereby giving rise to a liability of Rs.1,48,000/-. After adjusting the advance amount of Rs.14,000/-, the balance payable would be Rs.1,34,000/-. Thus, the claim of Rs.2,10,000/- is stated to be unsubstantiated. 7. On the other hand, Sri Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the issuance of the cheque, the signature thereon, and the liability are admitted. It is contended that the hiring of the DG set included both the hire charges and the cost of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9231 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2022 generator. The difference between the amounts of Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.1,48,000/- is stated to represent the cost of the generator. Learned counsel further submits that the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant, and that no probable defence has been advanced by the petitioner to rebut the said presumption or to shift the burden. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 9. The complainant issued a legal notice demanding a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards the dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to respond to the said notice by raising any probable defence. Upon filing of the complaint, apart from cross- examining the complainant, no defence evidence was adduced. The defence taken by the petitioner admits liability to the extent of Rs.1,48,000/-. The essential - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9231 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2022 ingredients of Section 139 of the N.I. Act stand satisfied, inasmuch as the cheque, the signature thereon, and the existence of a legally enforceable debt are admitted. The only contention raised pertains to the difference between Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.1,48,000/-, which, according to the complainant, represents the cost of the generator. In view of the admitted issuance of the cheque for Rs.2,10,000/-, the liability to honour the said amount stands established. The petitioner has not led any evidence to substantiate the alleged probable defence. 10. It is a settled position of law that unless the accused raises and proves a probable defence, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act, which operates in favour of the complainant, remains unrebutted. In the present case, there is no evidence to support the petitioner’s contention disputing the quantum of liability. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, on a proper appreciation of the evidence in light of Section 139 of the N.I. Act, rightly concluded that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9231 CRL.RP No. 100144 of 2022 petitioner/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly imposed a fine of Rs.2,15,000/-. 11. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any material irregularity or error in the findings of the trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court is based on the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. Likewise, the appellate Court’s judgment is the result of a re-appreciation of the material on record and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11