- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100441 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. S. BALACHANDRA NAIDU S/O. LATE B. SRIRAMULU NAIDU, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.2/2, 1ST D MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, 3RD PHASE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR S. CHATTIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. MALLESHAPPA BELAVADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. KOTUR, TALUK/DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 12.11.2021 PASSED IN CC NO.1332/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DHARWAD AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 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 Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.1332/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) confirmed in Crl.A.No.84/2021. 3. Further, revision petitioner was directed to pay the fine amount of Rs.1,05,000/- as compensation and out of which, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 of 2023 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act by contending that accused and complainant are acquainted to each other. Accused approached the complainant for hand loan in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same. Towards the repayment of the said hand loan, cheque bearing No.278210 was issued by the accused on 29.12.2017 in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which on presentation, came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 3.1 Legal notice was issued by the complainant but the accused failed to comply the callings of the notice. Therefore, action was sought against the accused. 5. After due trial, learned Trial Judge convicted the accused noting that the accused has taken a defence - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 of 2023 that he had issued stop payment instructions on the ground that the cheque has been misused by the complainant but failed to probablize his defence by placing cogent evidence on record and thus, convicted the accused. 6. The validity of the said judgment was challenged in Crl.A.No.84/2021 before the District Court. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court took into consideration the defence that the cheque has been misused by the complainant but failed to prove the misuse of the cheque by placing necessary evidence on record and discussed at length the oral testimony of accused in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 and rightly rejected the ground urged in the appeal and upheld the order of conviction. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 9. Sri Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 of 2023 petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel for respondent-complainant supports the impugned judgments. 11. He would further contend that conditions of the interim order imposed by this Court at the time of granting interim order has not been complied by the petitioner and therefore, the very revision petition is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the same. 12. He would also contend that admittedly as on the date of dishonor of the cheque, the accused had failed to maintain the necessary balance in his account so as to compel his banker to act on the ‘stop payment’ instructions and therefore, revision petition has no merits and sought for dismissal of the same. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 of 2023 13. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque came to be dishonored for want of funds at the first instance. Complainant thereafter contacted the accused over telephone and on the promise made by the accused, the cheque was re-presented to the bank. At the time of second re-presentation, the cheque came to be dishonored with an endorsement “Payment stopped by drawer ”. 15. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that mere endorsement that “payment stopped” by the drawer would not ipso facto efface the criminality as is enunciated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, especially, in the absence of the accused showing as on the date of dishonor of the cheque there was sufficient balance in his account. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 of 2023 16. In the case on hand, no such evidence is placed on by the accused. Further, since there is no dispute as to the fact that the Ex. P1-cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused, the trial Magistrate who has justified in raising the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 17. No doubt, it is a rebuttal presumption. However, to rebut the presumption available to the complainant, no proper rebuttal evidence is placed on record, which exposes the hollowness in the defence. 18. Oral testimony of DW1 is nothing but self serving testimony. If at all the cheque at Ex.P1 is misused, the accused should have taken positive action in filing the criminal complaint against the complainant, at least when he appeared before the Court and engaged the services of an advocate. No such action has been taken by the accused. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 of 2023 19. On cumulative consideration of the above, it is crystal clear that the conviction order recorded by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference, that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 20. However, imposition of Rs.5,000/- as fine amount towards the defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law in view of the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 21. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.1,05,000/- is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6922 CRL.RP No. 100441 of 2023 (iii) Entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. (iv) Failure to pay the compensation amount as ordered by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment as is ordered by the trial Magistrate. (iv) Time is extended till 30.05.2025 for payment of the balance of compensation amount. (iv) Fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by trial Magistrate confirmed by First Appellate Court is hereby set aside. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA-upto para 13 HMB-para 14 to end CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 10