- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5088 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100171 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: IBRAHIM @ NAUSHAD KAMARUDDIN SHAIKH AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 288, MUJAWAR GALLI, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KAMALAKAR M. SANKESHWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SANTOSH S/O. BALAKRISHNA HATNURE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. HATNUR CERAMICS, KOLHAPUR CIRCLE, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.278/2017 DATED 21.07.2018 PASSED BY 11TH ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, BE SET ASIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY APPELLANT BE ACQUITTED IN C.C.NO.148/2017 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CONVICTION DATED 06.10.2017 ON THE FILE OF 5TH JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 11:53:05 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5088 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Kamalakar M. Sankeshwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Shrikant T. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.1573/2011 (old) which was renumbered as CC No.148/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced as under: “Acting under Section 265 of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.16,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount Rs.16,05,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to State towards prosecution expenses.” 3. Validity of the order of conviction was challenged before the First Appellate Court in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5088 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2018 Crl.A.No.278/2017 which came to be dismissed by considered judgment dated 21.07.2018. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 5. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition is as under: A complaint came to be lodged under section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that complainant is acquainted with the accused and accused purchased some open plots in favour of his family members for a total consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-. After the sale deed, complainant came to know that accused has played fraud upon him and demanded return of money. At that juncture, accused said to have issued a cheque bearing No.002543 in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- dated 27.01.2011 which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. After issuing the notice seeking demand of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5088 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2018 the amount, there was no reply to the same. Accordingly, complainant sought for action against the revision petitioner. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record 13 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 13 comprising of cheque, counter slip, legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, consent undertaking bond, sale deeds, paper publication and notice punished in newspaper. 8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein, accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances and did not chose to place any defence evidence on record to rebut the presumption - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5088 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2018 available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. Subsequent thereto, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishment under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced as referred to supra. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.278/2017. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, reappreciated the material evidence on record and found that there was no rebuttal evidence placed on record and learned Trial Magistrate has rightly read the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and dismissed the appeal on merits. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5088 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2018 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 13. Sri.Kamalakar M. Sankeshwar, learned counsel representing Sri.Shrikant T. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that there is no proper opportunity granted to the revision petitioner for cross- examining P.W.1 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Per contra, Sri.Santhosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for the respondent contended that learned Trial Magistrate did grant sufficient opportunity which was not utilized by the revision petitioner. Therefore, complaint of the revision petitioner that there was no sufficient opportunity granted for cross-examination of P.W.1 cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 15. Having heard the arguments of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5088 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2018 16. On such perusal of the material on record, especially the order sheet, it is crystal clear that sufficient opportunity was granted by the Trial Court for cross- examination of P.W.1. But accused failed to make use of the same. 17. In the absence of any cross examination, statements made by P.W.1 on oath coupled with the documentary evidence has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate and noting that there was no rebuttal evidence placed on record, rightly convicted the revision petitioner for the aforesaid offence which has been rightly reappreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the First Appellate Court. 18. Therefore, having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any grounds or muchless good grounds to interfere with the order of Trial Court. 19. Accordingly, the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5088 CRL.RP No. 100171 of 2018 ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant/respondent under due identification. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) KAV CT:PA/LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 39