- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 610 OF 2019 BETWEEN: POORNIMA W/O NITHYANANDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS CANARA RICE INDUSTRIES, BIDAKAL KATTE, KOTESHWARA, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: JAYADEVAPPA P S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O MUMBARU, HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 501 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.B. UMESH, AMICUS CUERAE VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2025, COURT NOTICE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS IS SERVED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET AISDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 05.01.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.10012/2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 28.03.2018 IN C.C.NO.831/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HOSANGARA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the concurrent finding in C.C.No.831/2011 on the file of JMFC, Hosanagar and Criminal Appeal No.10012/2018 dated 05.01.2019 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar. 2. The complaint is lodged against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act, 1881'). The cheque for Rs.1,43,000/- said to have been issued by the petitioner/accused is dishonoured and the complainant has issued a notice under Section 138 of Act, 1881 demanding the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The amount is not repaid. Hence, the complaint is lodged. 3. Petitioner did not plead guilty. The Trial Court held that the transaction is established and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months and imposed fine of Rs.1,83,750/- out of which Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be defrayed towards the State expenditure and Rs.1,78,750/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 also ordered that in case the fine amount is not paid, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for further three months. 4. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner issued the cheque as a security for the transaction with Shivaprakash Rice Mill as the petitioner used to purchase Paddy from the said Mill. It is submitted that the amount payable towards purchase of Paddy was repaid. However, the proprietor of the said rice mill Ishwarappa Gowda did not return the said cheque and the said cheque was misused by worker Jaya in the said Rice Mill and in this behalf, the petitioner had lodged the complaint which is marked at Ex.D.1. 6. It is urged that Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the contention relating to the misuse of the cheque as contended by the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 7. It is also urged that pursuant to the complaint lodged, FIR is registered against the said Jaya and the contentions that the cheque is altered and old cheque has been misused to file a false case against the petitioner are not properly appreciated despite the petitioner's contentions are apparent on the face of the record viz., the cheque in question. 8. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that sentence of nine months simple imprisonment and further three months imprisonment in the event of default to pay the fine is also disproportionate. 9. There is no representation on behalf of the complainant/respondent. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 11. Ex.D.1 is the complaint lodged by the petitioner against one Mr.Jayadevappa/respondent who was said to be working under Eshwarappa Gowda in Shivaprakash Rice Mill. Petitioner has admitted that he used to buy paddy from Ishwarappa Gowda and had issued a cheque - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 as a security for the transaction. Thus, issuance of cheque is admitted. The signature on the cheque is also admitted. Petitioner’s contention is that the blank cheque has been misused. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the contents of the cheque and would say that name of the complainant is not properly mentioned in the cheque. Some of the letters are in uppercase and some are in lowercase and it is also his further submission that the date is not written in proper format. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the cheque was issued to the petitioner in 1990s and the cheque is presented in the year 2011. In addition, it is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proprietary concern is not made a party and the petitioner is the sole party, as such the complaint is defective. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 15. As already noticed, Ex.D.1 is the complaint lodged by the petitioner alleging misuse of the cheque. The complaint is lodged on 25.01.2016. However, the respondent has lodged the complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Act, 1881 in the year 2011 itself. Thus, it is apparent that the complaint is an afterthought. 16. It is also noticed that the signature on the cheque is admitted. Petitioner’s contention is that she has issued a cheque as a security for the paddy purchase. She also contends in the complaint that she has repaid the amount payable in respect of the Paddy purchased by her. However, alleged repayment is not established. This being the position, this Court is of the view that both Trial Court and Appellate Court were justified in coming to the conclusion that the defense raised by the petitioner is not established. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 17. This Court has noticed the cheque at Ex.P.1. It is indeed true that some of the letters in the name of the complainant entered in the cheque are in uppercase and some are in lowercase. That does not invalidate the cheque. 18. It is also noticed that the date is not written in the usual format. In between the date and the month, one can see '='. However in between the month and the year, there is no such sign. That again does not invalidate the cheque. 19. Before the Trial Court it was the contention of the accused that she had issued a blank cheque. In other words, she has issued authorization to the drawee to write the contents of the cheque. This being the position, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in recording a finding that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 138 of Act, 1881. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 20. Learned counsel also raised a contention that the fine amount is excessive given the fact that cheque was for Rs.1,43,000/-. 21. This Court has noticed that the fine amount of Rs.40,000 is almost 35% of the cheque amount. The cheque is of the year 2011. We are in 2025. In case the petition is dismissed, the complainant will receive the cheque amount + Rs.40,000/- fine amount. This being the position, this Court does not find any merit in the contention that the fine amount is excessive. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the imprisonment of nine months in addition to fine of Rs.1,83,750/- and further imprisonment for three months in the event of default to pay the fine is excessive and is disproportionate. 23. This Court finds some merit in the said contention. Since cheque amount is only for Rs.1,43,000/-. The Trial Court should not have imposed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 imprisonment for nine months for the petitioner who is a lady. It is also stated that the petitioner's husband is no more. Under these circumstances, sentence of nine months is set-aside and in the event of failure to pay the fine amount within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for one month. 24. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 28.03.2018 in C.C. No.831/2011 on the file of J.M.F.C., Hosanagara and judgment dated 05.01.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10012/2018 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar insofar as conviction is concerned are affirmed and the sentence relating to fine amount is modified. (iii) Simple imprisonment for nine months is set- aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37808 CRL.RP No. 610 of 2019 (iv) Simple imprisonment of three months imposed in the event of default of payment of fine is reduced to one month instead of three months. (v) Petitioner is granted three months time from today to pay the fine amount before the Trial Court after deducting the amount in deposit before the Trial Court. (vi) The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the complainant/respondent. (vii) In case the amount is paid as ordered, the liability of the petitioner/accused shall stand discharged. In case, the amount is not paid, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38