- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6473 CRL.RP No. 100356 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100356 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: K.M. CHANNAVEERAIAH S/O. GURUSIDDAIH, AGE: 68 YEARS, R/O. M.B. COLONY, H.B. HALLI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. LATE GOLLARA HUVANNA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 2. HALESH GOLLARA S/O. LATE GOLLARA HUVANNA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. NIL, BOTH ARE R/O. HIREHADAGALI VILLAGE, HUVINA HADAGALI TALUK, DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGAR-583216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO THE ORDER DATED 7TH JULY 2023 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL 5020/2021 BY III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) CONFIRMING ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED ON 25.02.2021 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 650/2013 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUVINHADAGALLI, FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT MAY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETTIION WITH THE COST THROUGHOUT. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:35:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6473 CRL.RP No. 100356 of 2023 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 Deepak Maganur, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri B.G. Indi for Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.3,000/- to the State as defraying expenses in C.C. No.650/2013 which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.5020/2021. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. ACT alleging that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6473 CRL.RP No. 100356 of 2023 on 06.01.2013, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same in a short period. 5. Towards the repayment, cheque bearing No.027871 in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 14.03.2013 drawn on BDCC Bank Limited, Hagaribommanahalli Branch was issued by the accused, which on presentation, came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Legal notice was issued thereafter by the complainant. In spite of service of notice, there is no compliance nor any reply. Hence action was sought. 6. Thereafter, accused stood for trial and got himself examined as DW-1 and placed on record three documents viz., statement of account of Huvanna G., tractor purchase and delivery certificate and registration certificate. 7. Learned Judge took into consideration oral testimony of four witnesses and seven documentary evidence on record, discussed in detail about the probative - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6473 CRL.RP No. 100356 of 2023 value of the evidence of the complainant raised presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 8. Learned Trial Judge also took into consideration the probative value of the oral evidence of DW-1 and has noted that during the course of cross-examination DW-1 admitted that he did not lodge any complaint to his banker for stop payment nor to police about the misuse of the cheque and convicted the accused as referred to supra. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.5020/2021. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the material evidence on record and rightly rejected the appeal. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Sri Deepak Maganur, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6473 CRL.RP No. 100356 of 2023 revision petition, vehemently contended that accused is not acquainted with complainant. 12. He would further contend that complainant is a total stranger and cheque has been misused by the complainant. Therefore, Trial Court and First Appellate Court grossly erred in convicting the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra, Sri B.G. Indi for Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned judgments. 14. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the dishonoured cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6473 CRL.RP No. 100356 of 2023 16. In the cross-examination of the accused, he has taken up the contention that complainant is a stranger and there is a misuse of cheque. To substantiate the said aspect of the matter, there is no material on record. Accused has clearly admitted that he did not lodge any complaint to the police about the misuse of the cheque nor has issued any stop payment to his banker. 17. Under such circumstances, Trial Judge raising the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is just and proper which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while maintaining the conviction. 18. Accordingly, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in respect of conviction. 19. Having said so, imposition of Rs.3,30,000/- as compensation as against cheque amount is just and proper. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6473 CRL.RP No. 100356 of 2023 20. However, imposition of fine amount of Rs.3,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law the in view of the fact that lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. Accordingly, said sum of Rs.3,000/- needs to be set aside. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, accused is directed to pay fine amount of Rs.3,30,000/- on or before 15.05.2028. (iii) Failure to pay the amount as aforesaid, accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6473 CRL.RP No. 100356 of 2023 (iv) A sum of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is set aside. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21