- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100312 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT.SHAHIDA BEGUM W/O. LATE RAHAMATULLAHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. ALAM NAWAZ, H.NO.45 “D” BLOCK, HRG ENCLAVE, BEHIND NANDI COLONY, TILAK NAGAR, CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAMMED ABRAR S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI S.F. MD. NAQI S/O. LATE HASEEN MOHIDDIN SAB, AGE: 59 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.1, II CROSS, 2ND STAGE, GOLDSMITH COLONY, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.H. YADWAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI (COMMERCIAL COURT) IN CRL.A.NO.27/2022 BY CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 19.02.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BALLARI IN CC NO.711/2018 IN SO FAR AS ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BY ORDERING TO PAY RS.11,36,000/- AS FINE AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTH AND OUT OF FINE AMOUNT A SUM OF RS.11,26,000/- SHALL BE PAYABLE TO THE COMPLAINANT AS COMPENSATION AND THE REST OF THE AMOUNT SHALL BE DEFRAYED AS STATE EXPENSES IS PAYABLE TO RESPONDENT AS COMPENSATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.09 11:36:31 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Mohammed Abrar S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.S.H.Yadwad, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.711/2018 dated 19.02.2022 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was ordered to be pay fine amount of Rs.11,36,000/-, out of which sum of Rs.11,26,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.27/2022 dated 30.07.2022 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of offence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that in respect of repayment of the legally recoverable debt, accused said to have issued two cheques bearing Nos.149281 and 149282 dated 02.04.2018 in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- each drawn on IDBI Bank. Said cheques on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, legal notice was issued by the complainant. There was no compliance to the callings of the legal notice. Therefore, complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. After completing necessary formalities, learned Trial Magistrate summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 5. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 Instruments Act noting that accused did not step into the witness box to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.27/2022. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by considered judgment dated 30.07.2022. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that learned Trial Magistrate failed to note that three documents were confronted in the cross-examination of P.W.1 which were marked as Exs.D.1 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 to 3, has not been considered by the learned Trial Magistrate while appreciating the case on hand and non consideration of those documents has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. He would further contend that there is a material alteration in the cheque inasmuch as preceding the name of the complainant, letters ‘S’ and ‘F’ has been inserted in the cheque in a different ink. 11. He also contends that without even stepping into the witness box, the accused can demonstrate that presumption got rebutted following the principles of law enunciated in the case of Rohit Bhai Jeevanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarath and Another reported in AIR 2019 SC 1876 and submitted that order of the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is suffering from legal infirmity and patent factual errors. Therefore, revision petition needs to be admitted for further consideration. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders. 13. He would contend that in the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed on record, complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record including the Trial Court Records meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that cheques marked at Ex.P.1 and 3 belongs to the revision petitioner and signature found therein is that of the revision petitioner is also not in dispute. 16. Admittedly, both the cheques came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and not on the ground of material alteration. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 17. On careful perusal of the cheques marked at Exs.P.1 and 3, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he has answered that letters ‘S’ and ‘F’ which has been preceded before the name of the complainant, has been inserted by the son of the revision petitioner and there is a small signature of the revision petitioner beneath the said alteration. 18. No doubt, in the certified copy, said signature is not visible. As in the said place, Trial Court Records are stitched and there is a hole. But it is visible in the original of Ex.P.1. 19. Taking note of the fact that there is a signature of the revision petitioner beneath the said corrections in the cheques and cheques came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and not on the ground of material alteration. The ground that is urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that cheques are materially altered and therefore, conviction could not have been recorded cannot be countenanced in law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 20. Coming to the question of non service of the notice, admittedly, notice came to be issued to two addresses and notice issued to Bengaluru address have not even returned, whereas notice issued to Ballari District is returned with an endorsement ‘addressee left’. Same is placed on record. 21. The purpose of notice is to allow a bonafide drawer of a cheque, 15 days time to retrace the steps in honouring the commitment. Admittedly, in the case on hand, revision petitioner did not retrace his steps in honouring the cheque amount. No further particulars are also found to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. 22. No doubt, in the Annexure to the judgment, there is no mention by the learned Trial Magistrate about marking of Exs.D.1 to 3, which were admittedly marked during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 by confronting the certified copy of the papers of civil proceedings. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 23. On perusal of Exs.D.1 to 3, this Court is unable to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted by following the principles of law enunciated in the case of Rohit Bhai Jeevanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarath and Another reported in AIR 2019 SC 1876. 24. Further, when once the cheque is admitted and signature found therein is admitted, it is for the revision petitioner to rebut the presumption by stepping into the witness box and explain before the Court under what circumstances, cheques have reached the hands of the complainant. 25. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed on record, learned Trial Magistrate raising the presumption in favour of the complainant and convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which has been rightly reappreciated by - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5853 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2022 the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 26. View of this Court is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain V. Ajay Singh reported in 2023(10) SCC 148. 27. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition are not sufficient enough to admit the matter for further consideration. 28. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 5