- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6494 CRL.RP No. 100372 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.100372 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRINIVAS KAMMA S/O. NAGESHWAR RAO, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS, R/O. HOSAKERA, POST: HOSKERA, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARNAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RAJASHEKHAR S/O. RATNARAO, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR RAJASHEKHAR POULTRY FARM, NEAR NH-13, HARIHAR ROAD, RAYARKERI HOSPET, POST: HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY, PIN-583201. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS DATED 07.10.2022 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL 23/2022 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.01.2020 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOPPAL, IN CC NO. 1145/2013 AND KINDLY ACQUIT THE PETITION THE ACCUSED/ PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6494 CRL.RP No. 100372 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 Sharanappa S. Koliwad, learned counsel for revision petitioner is present. He took time to file the acknowledgement for having complied the conditions of interim order. Sufficient time has been granted. Since the interim order is not complied, he requests the Court to address the arguments on merits. 2. Heard arguments on merits. 3. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.1145/2013 for the for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) and ordered to pay fine of Rs.11,58,864/- as compensation and sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.23/20224. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6494 CRL.RP No. 100372 of 2023 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act by contending that accused is the friend of the complainant who borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same. Towards the repayment, he said to have issued a cheque in a sum of Rs.11,58,864/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, which on presentation, came to be dishonoured and there was no compliance to the legal notice. 5. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence as aforesaid and ordered to pay cheque amount as compensation and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as fine amount towards the defraying expenses of the State. 6. The learned Trial Judge raised the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6494 CRL.RP No. 100372 of 2023 Act and noted that there was no proper rebuttable evidence placed on record and oral testimony of DW-1 is nothing but the self-serving testimony which did not establish the case of the accused. 7. Learned Trial Judge also took into consideration the oral testimony of PW-2 who has supported the case of the complainant in his oral testimony apart from the documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the complainant. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly re-appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal of the accused. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 10. Sri S.S. Koliwad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6494 CRL.RP No. 100372 of 2023 Courts have not properly appreciated the oral evidence of accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Respondent is served with the notice but remained absent. 12. Taking note of the arguments put forth on behalf of the accused, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that learned Trial Judge considered the material evidence on record in proper manner. 14. Accused took a defence that Ex.P-6 is not a valid document in the absence of seal and signature of the bank. Accused also took defence that complainant himself obtained the loan of Rs.4,00,00,000/- for the poultry farm business. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6494 CRL.RP No. 100372 of 2023 15. Therefore, there was no lending capacity of the accused and placed his reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahadevaiah vs. Shivalingaiah1. 16. So far as the lending capacity is concerned, it needs to be presumed as per the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh2. 17. Therefore, this Court having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any material irregularity or legal infirmity or patent factual error in recording order of conviction and sentence. 18. However, imposition of Rs.1,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State needs interference as lis is privy to the parties and no state machinery involved. 19. Accordingly, following order is passed. 1 (2018) 2 KCCR 1710 2 (2023) 10 SCC 148 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6494 CRL.RP No. 100372 of 2023 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, fine amount is reduced from Rs.11,59,864/- to Rs.11,58,864/-. (iii) Entire sum of Rs.11,58,864/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant on or before 15.05.2025. (iv) Failure to pay the compensation, accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate. (v) A sum of Rs.1,000/- ordered 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.: 22