- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29078 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 444 OF 2018 BETWEEN: MOHAMMED SHARIEF, S/O. RASUL SHERIFF,AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, HALLY SANTHY MALLA,AREHALLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SURESH D DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: HAFEEZ-UR-REHAMAN, S/O. ABDUL AZIZ,AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, COFFEE PLANTER, HULKODU ESTATE, AREHALLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT PRATISHTA C B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KIRAN V RON, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO a. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNMED ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 27.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELUR IN C.C.NO.447/2013 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.71/2017.b. REVERSE THE FINDINGS AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGES FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR SETTLEMENT OR FINAL ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29078 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 2. This petition is filed against the concurrent finding. Complaint is lodged by the respondent of this petition for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short, 'Act, 1881'). 3. The complainant alleged that he had entered into a transaction with the accused and accused had purchased Pepper from the complainant in the year 2011-12. Accused could not make the payment immediately. Thereafter, he issued a cheque for Rs.4,10,000/- being the value of pepper purchased by the accused. Said cheque was presented for encashment and it was dishonoured. Later, notice was issued. There was no payment. After complying all the statutory requirements, the complaint was raised under Section 138 of Act, 1881. 4. Accused did not plead guilty and after trial, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the transaction is established and in terms of order dated 27.02.2017, accused/petitioner was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29078 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2018 convicted. Trial Court directed accused to pay Rs.4,60,000/- and in default directed simple imprisonment for three months and in exercise of power under Section 357(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, directed payment of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation to complainant and Rs.10,000/- is ordered to the State as fine amount. 5. Accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. Sessions Court in terms of judgment dated 07.03.2018 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present petition by the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant failed to establish the transaction and the liability for a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-. It is his further submission that the accused had made payment of Rs.40,000/- in respect of the Pepper worth Rs.2.00 lakhs produced by the complainant and only Rs.1,60,000/- was due and the blank cheque was issued by the accused in respect of the transaction and same has been misused by the complainant and complaint is filed for offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 alleging cheque of Rs.4,10,000/- issued by the accused is dishonoured. He would - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29078 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2018 further submit that the complainant has not produced materials to establish the liability for Rs.4,10,000/- as alleged in the complaint. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the transaction between the complainant and the accused is very much established and the defense that accused had purchased the Pepper worth Rs.2.00 lakhs is not established and further, the defense that he has paid Rs.40,000/- and only Rs.1,60,000/- is due is not established. It is her submission that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant is not rebutted by the accused by leading rebuttal evidence. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. Both Courts have concurrently held that the transaction is established. It is noticed that Ex.D.1 the alleged letter issued by the complainant stating that Rs.1,60,000/- is due is not established. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have held that the undertaking given by the accused stating that he will pay Rs.1,60,000/- by 27.01.2011 does not bind the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29078 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2018 complainant to restrict his transaction to only Rs.1,60,000/- in terms of the alleged undertaking. The alleged undertaking is disputed by the complainant. 10. It is further relevant to notice that the cheque is dated 08.02.2013 and alleged letter is dated 27.01.2011. 11. This being the position, this Court does not find any error in the finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that the presumption available under Section 139 of the Act, 1881 is not rebutted by the accused-petitioner. 12. For these reasons, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. 13. It is further stated that the petitioner is aged 87 years. Considering his age, this Court deems it appropriate to grant two months time to pay the amount excluding the amount of Rs.2,05,000/- which is already deposited before the Trial Court. 14. The amount in deposit before the Trial Court with interest if any, shall be released in favour of the complainant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29078 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2018 15. Balance amount of Rs.2,45,000/- shall be paid within two months from today. In default, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 16. It is also noticed that the Trial Court has imposed a default imprisonment for a period of three months in case fine amount of Rs.4,60,000/- is not paid. 17. Considering the age of the petitioner, fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner is waived. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50