- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14059 CRL.RP No. 1226 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1226 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: M/S SHIVALLI HOME PRODUCTS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR B H NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE J .HARIDASA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O HARIPRASAD BELAPU VILLAGE, PANIYOOR POST - 574 117 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE) AND: ANIL KUMAR S/O SHEKHARA POOJARY AGED 35 YEARS, R/O ADITI MOODUPALU HERGA VILLAGE - 576 107 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 03.09.2018 IN C.C.NO.670/2013 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI AND THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.78/2018 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14059 CRL.RP No. 1226 of 2021 PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF TRIAL COURT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SET HIM FREE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for Respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner, who has suffered an order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate in CC No.670/2013 dated 03.09.2018 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.78/2018 dated 18.10.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.7,25,000/-. Out of which a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying the expense of the State. 3. Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that imposing double the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14059 CRL.RP No. 1226 of 2021 cheque amount as the fine amount in the case has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice and further imposing a sum of Rs.5,000/- is beyond the scope of the powers of the Magistrate for awarding a fine amount which is more than double the cheque amount and thus, she sought for allowing the revision petition. 4. Per contra, Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the Respondent supports the impugned judgment. 5. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 6. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, the cheque which was issued by the revision petitioner on 05.01.2013 towards the repayment of the loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/- came to be dishonored for want of funds, and there was no compliance to the callings of notice. 7. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter and in the absence of any proper rebuttable evidence placed on record, conviction order recorded by the Trial Magistrate which - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14059 CRL.RP No. 1226 of 2021 was confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this revision petition. 8. However, imposing a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying the expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law on two grounds. 9. Firstly, on the ground that there cannot be an imposition of the fine amount over and above double the cheque amount. 10. Secondly, since no State machinery is involved and lis is privy to the parties, imposing the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying the expense of the State needs to be interfered with. 11. Since the cheque is of the year 2013 and the complainant is yet to get the benefit under the cheque, the imposition of double the cheque amount needs no interference in this revision. 12. Accordingly, following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14059 CRL.RP No. 1226 of 2021 ORDER i. Revision Petition allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused, a fine amount is reduced from a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- to Rs.7,20,000/- iii. Imposition of fine amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. iv. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19