- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3720 CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200035 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHASHIKUMAR S/O SHYAMRAO POLICE PATIL, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. CHOWLI VILLAGE, TQ.NOUBAD, DIST. BIDAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. INDUDHAR P. JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: RAJKUMAR S/O NAGASHETTY GADGI, AGE:52 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.19-6-35/1, MILLENNUIM SCHOOL, BIDAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR SRI. GHATE KONDIBARAO, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (OLD), U/SEC. 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION U/SEC 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 14/2025. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3720 CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri. Indudhar P. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sangoli Naganna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. K.M.Ghate, for the respondent. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.1542/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and directed to pay fine of Rs.15,50,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.15,30,000/- as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.20,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed an appeal before the District Court which is now pending in Criminal Appeal No.14/2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3720 CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2025 4. In the appeal, the counsel has sought for suspension of sentence. The learned Judge in the first appellate Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application seeking suspension of sentence, subject to payment of 20% of the amount, within a period of four weeks from the date of order i.e. 29.01.2025. 5. Validity of the said order is called in question in this petition. 6. Sri. Indudhar P. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that, admittedly, the cheque in question came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘drawee signature differs’. Therefore, the trial Judge ought not to have raised the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice, which is the subject matter of the appeal and when there is no liability at all on the revision petitioner direction to deposit 20% of the fine amount has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3720 CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2025 resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, Sri. Sangoli Naganna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Ghate Kondibarao, learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned order. 8. Having heard the arguments from both sides, this Court has perused the materials on record, meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, there is an order of conviction which is sought to be suspended, pending consideration of the appeal on merits. 10. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court exercised discretion vested in him under the statute and suspended the sentence on a condition that, 20% of the amount is to be paid to the complainant. 11. If the petitioner succeeds in the petition, he can always recover the amount from the complainant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3720 CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2025 12. In order to clear all apprehensions of the accused, the order of the learned Judge in the first appellate Court if modified by directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount into the Court instead of paying the same to the complainant, ends of justice would be met. 13. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed in part; (ii) The condition of 20% of the fine amount to be paid to the complainant/respondent is hereby modified by directing the revision petitioner to deposit before the Court on or before 30.07.2025, failing which, the respondent/complainant is at liberty to proceed further with the case in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT:PK