- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100043 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA METGUDDA AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : RAINAPUR VILLAGE, AT POST: YARAGATTI-591129 TQ : SAUNDATTI, DIST : BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ITTAPPA S/O.RAYAPPA NARAGATTI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R S 1A. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. ITTAPPA NARAGATTI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: H. NO. 65/1, BHANDUR GALLI, TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001. 1B. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. ITTAPPA NARAGATTI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. H. NO. 65/1, BHANDUR GALLI, TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 1C. SMT. RENUKA W/O. SHRIDHAR PUJARI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H. NO. 65/1, BHANDUR GALLI, TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI – 590001. 1D. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. AVINASH MORAB, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H. NO. 65/1, BHANDUR GALLI, TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001. 1E. SRI. VINAYAK ITTAPPA NARAGATTI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: H. NO. 65/1, BHANDUR GALLI, TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 (1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION & ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 26/02/2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF VII-JMFC, BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO.435/2017 CONFIRMED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 08/01/2020 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.88/2019 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.02.2019 passed in C.C. No.435/2017 by the VII JMFC., Belagavi, and the judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.88/2019 by the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 2. The respondent herein filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner was in need of financial assistance. Accordingly, he is stated to have advanced a sum of ₹4,10,000/-, which the petitioner had assured to repay. It is further alleged that upon the petitioner's failure to repay the said amount despite repeated demands, a cheque dated 18.08.2014 bearing No.000474, drawn on Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Belagavi, was issued for the aforesaid sum of ₹4,10,000/-. However, when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 was returned dishonored with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient." Thereafter, a statutory legal notice was issued to the accused on 13.12.2014, to which no reply was received. 3. The respondent/complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked 7 documents as Exhibits P1 to P7. The petitioner examined himself as DW1 and produced 5 documents, marked as Exhibits D1 to D5. The Trial Court, by placing reliance on the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’), and upon appreciation of the evidence of PW1, Exhibit P6, and Exhibit D1, recorded a finding that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹4,24,000/-. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.88/2019, which came to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had entered into an agreement for cultivation of sugarcane, as evidenced by Ex.D1. It is contended that in furtherance of the terms of the said agreement, the cheque in question was issued in favour of the complainant as security, which has been misused by presenting it as if issued towards repayment of a loan. 6. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the ongoing sugarcane cultivation agreement between the complainant and the petitioner, certain blank signed stamp papers were in the possession of the complainant, and the same have been misused to fabricate evidence of a loan transaction, as reflected in Ex.P6. In the alternative, learned counsel submits that, if this Court is inclined to confirm the order of conviction, the petitioner may be granted some time to repay the balance amount. It is further submitted that, in compliance with the interim order of this Court, 25% of the fine amount has been - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 deposited before the Trial Court, and the same has been withdrawn by the respondent–complainant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–complainant submits that Ex.D1 pertains to a transaction distinct from the one recorded in Ex.P6. He contends that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of a loan liability, as evidenced by Ex.P6. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused has admitted the execution of Ex.P6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that if the cheque had indeed been issued in connection with the sugarcane cultivation agreement as per Ex.D1, the particulars of the cheque would have found mention therein. It is also pointed out that the petitioner failed to reply to the statutory legal notice by setting out any valid or plausible defence. The submission that the complainant misused blank signed stamp papers, it is contended, is insufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the absence of any action initiated in accordance with law in that regard. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The issuance of the cheque in favour of the complainant, including the signature and the amount mentioned therein, is not seriously disputed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the cheque was issued in connection with Ex.P6. However, the contention that the cheque in question was issued pursuant to the application under Ex.D1 cannot be accepted. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, had the cheque been issued as a security, as contended with reference to Ex.P1, its particulars would have been reflected in Ex.D1. A perusal of Ex.D1 does not disclose any such details. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 10. On the contrary, the submission of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued in accordance with Ex.P6 carries merit. The execution of Ex.P6 is admitted by the petitioner-accused. However, the contents of Ex.P6 are disputed on the ground that the signature was affixed on a blank sheet of paper. A conjoint reading of Ex.P1 and Ex.P6 indicates that the cheque marked as Ex.P1 was indeed issued pursuant to Ex.P6. Furthermore, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant. The defence set up by the petitioner is not sufficient to rebut the said presumption. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly concluded that the cheque marked as Ex.P1 was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. It is further held that the dishonour of the said cheque for insufficiency of funds constitutes an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 Instruments Act, as all the ingredients of the said offence stand satisfied. 11. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly confirmed the judgment of conviction. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no evidence on record warranting such a conclusion, no material has been demonstrated to indicate that a view different from the one taken by the trial Court was possible or justified. Hence, the order of conviction warrants no interference. 12. At this stage, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking extension of time to pay the fine amount deserves consideration. Learned counsel for the respondent, in all fairness, submits that a period of three months may be granted for payment of the balance amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, without hesitation, accepted the suggestion of three months' time. In view of the concurrence between the learned counsel - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 for both parties regarding the extension of time, the petitioner is granted a period of three months to pay the balance amount, while the conviction is upheld. 13. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii) Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2019 passed by the VII JMFC., Belagavi in CC No.435/2017 and Judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.88/2019 by VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi are confirmed. iii) It is submitted that out of total fine amount, part of the amount is deposited and the said deposit has already been withdrawn by the petitioner. The remaining amount shall be deposited within a period of three months as agreed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8895 CRL.RP No. 100043 of 2020 iv) In default of the deposit of the fine amount within time, the petitioner shall undergo sentence as ordered by the trial Court. v) The respondent-complainant is at liberty to file necessary application if the fine amount is not deposited within time agreed for implementation of order of conviction. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE HMB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7