- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 88 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M.K.SHIVAPRAKASH S/O LATE M U KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. GHATTADAHALLI VILLAGE MAKONAHALLI POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: A.M.PRASANNA S/O LATE A G MANJUNATH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.HEECHAHALLI ESTATE, HALEKERE, P B NO.53, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHD. SALEHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.06.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A. NO. 100/2017 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDIGERE IN C.C.NO.500/2015 AND ETC. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.06.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.100/2017 by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, whereunder judgment of conviction dated 20.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.500/2015 by Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has deposited fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on 20.02.2025 before the trial Court and placing reliance on the judgments of co- ordinate of this Court in the case of D.R. DEVIPRASAD VS. VIKRAM G.C. in CRL.RP NO.757/2017 decided on 24.11.2023 and in the case of SRI. AJAY GUPTA VS. SRI. BANAKAR MANJUNATH in CRL.RP NO.100050/2020 decided on 26.02.2021 prays to set aside the sentence of imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that, the cheque amount is Rs.3,50,000/- and it is dated 18.03.2015 and the trial Court on 20.04.2017 has awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, taking into consideration lapse of two years. He further submits that, now, after lapse of more than ten years, the respondent- complainant has to receive the said amount of compensation which is little higher than cheque amount, he will be put to injustice and prays for enhancement of compensation amount, if the Court sets aside the order of sentence of imprisonment. He further submits that, if - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 Court has directed payment of interest on the compensation at 6%, now by this time, the interest would have been Rs.1,92,000/-. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court has perused the impugned judgments and judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. 6. As the learned counsel for petitioner is not assailing the judgment of conviction for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the judgment of conviction requires to be affirmed. 7. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of D.R. DEVIPRASAD (supra) has held as under: " 9. In this context of the matter it is useful to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in SOMNATH SARKAR VS. UTPAL BASU MALLICK AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 16 SCC 465, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by relying on its earlier judgment in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VS. SAYED BABALAL H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 extracted paragraph 17, which reads as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 "17. Unlike that for other forms of crime, the punishment here (insofar as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the accused who is willing to undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy for the holder of the cheque." The Hon'ble Apex Court having referred the said finding has observed and held that Statute provide for imposition of imprisonment was only intended to ensure quick recovery of the amount payable under the instrument. It has been further held that the legislative intent was to provide a strong criminal remedy in order to deter the worryingly high incidence of dishonour of cheques. While the possibility of imprisonment up to two years provides a remedy of a punitive nature, the provision for imposing a 'fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque' serves a compensatory purpose. What must be remembered - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 is that the dishonour of a cheque can be best described as a regulatory offence that has been created to serve the public interest in ensuring the reliability of these instruments. The impact of this offence is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In view of the principles enunciated in this judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and the object of legislature in incorporating the provision for punishment of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is to ensure the credibility of the money involved covered under the cheque." 8. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. AJAY GUPTA (supra) has held as under: "7. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the records, it is clear that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The accused has also not disputed issuance of cheque to the complainant and the evidence of PW-1 and Exs.P-1 to P-5 documents, the cheque and notice corroborates with the evidence of PW-1. Though DW-1/accused examined himself and stated that there is no such due payable by the accused but no documents are produced or examined any witnesses. Therefore, the contention - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 of the accused was not accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that offence is committed by the accused. Therefore, the concurrent findings of both the courts below are not required to be interfered with. The finding of conviction does not require re-consideration. However, in respect of the sentence passed by the trial Court is one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-. The offence under Section 138 of NI Act provides imposing imprisonment up to two years and to pay fine double the cheque amount or with both. Here in this case, the cheque amount is only Rs.30,000/- and in my considered opinion, imposition of both imprisonment and fine is little bit harsh and disproportionate to the offence committed by the accused. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment requires to be set aside and modified." 9. No doubt the object of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is to see that cheques issued are honored. There is no intention on the part of complainant to put the accused behind bars, but the complainant is interested in getting back the cheque amount along with interest. In the case on hand, the cheque is issued for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 Rs.3,50,000/- and it is dated 18.03.2015. Considering the date of cheque, amount is unpaid for more than ten years. The trial Court while awarding the compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has taken into consideration lapse of time of two years and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- above the cheque amount. 10. As the petitioner-accused has paid the said compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and fine of Rs.2,000/- after ten 10 years of cheque date, the complainant is put to loss and injustice. 11. This Court recently in the case of M/S. BANAVATHY & COMPANY vs. MAHEER ELETRO MECH (P) LTD. AND OTHERS IN CRL.RP NO.996/2016 has held that, whenever there is an order to pay compensation, it has to carry interest since litigation will be prolonged before the appellate Court and in the revision petition before this Court. As the petitioner-accused is seeking setting aside the simple imprisonment of six months, he has to compensate complainant in a sum of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court. 12. In view of the above, the following; ORDER a) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. b) The conviction of the petitioner-accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is affirmed. c) Sentence of imprisonment is modified by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.52,000/- from Rs.2,000/-. Out of the said fine amount, Rs.50,000/- has to be paid as compensation to respondent-complainant. d) If the petitioner-accused fails to pay the said enhanced fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. e) The said enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be paid within two months from this day. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27955 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2023 f) The respondent-complainant is permitted to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner-accused before the trial Court towards compensation. g) The respondent-complainant shall furnish his bank account details, so as to enable the trial Court to transfer the amount deposited by the petitioner-accused directly to bank account of the respondent. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32