- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2378 CRL.RP No. 100365 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100365 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: T.D. PRABHU S/O. DYAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. R/O. DOOR NO.499, 10TH WARD, PRINTING PRESS STREET, HUVINAHADAGALI TOWN, BALLARI DISTRICT NOW VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583104 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: P. NAAVEEN KUMAR S/O. CHANDRAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. UCHHINGEDURGA VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TQ., BALLARI DIST. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. PATIL NAGANAGOUDA S/O. VIRUPAKSHA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. PUNAGATTA VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TQ., BALLARI DIST.-583131. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12.07.2023 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.20 16:00:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2378 CRL.RP No. 100365 of 2023 5001/2021 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 17.12.2020 MADE IN C.C.NO. 167/2016 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Praveen Kumar G. appearing on behalf of Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.S. Beturmath, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner who has suffered an order of conviction dated 17.12.2020 passed in C.C.No.167/2016 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanhalli1, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5001/2021 by the III Additional District and Sessions 1 For short, ‘the Trial Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2378 CRL.RP No. 100365 of 2023 Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete)2, vide its judgment dated 12.07.2023. 3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A private complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,18813. 3.2. In the complaint it has been stated that the complainant is the resident of Uchhengidurga village having business of sale of seeds, pesticides and fertilizers. 4. Accused is doing the contract work at Huvinahadagali. He obtained hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and towards the repayment he issued a cheque, which on presentation came to be dishonored. There was no compliance to the callings of statutory notice and hence, sought for action. 2 For short, ‘the First Appellate Court’ 3 For short, ‘N I Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2378 CRL.RP No. 100365 of 2023 5. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities recorded the evidence of the complainant and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N I Act, and awarded fine amount of Rs.15,10,000/-. Out of which a sum of Rs.2000/- towards defraying expenses to the State. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.5001/2021. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the argument of the parties and dismissed the appeal. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this Revision Petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly taken note of the material evidence on record, especially when the complainant is representing by Power of Attorney Holder - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2378 CRL.RP No. 100365 of 2023 and therefore, the order of cognizance is bad in law and sought for allowing of the revision petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the chaque in question belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 13. According to the complainant the same was issued by the accused towards the repayment of hand loan. 14. Admittedly, the statutory notice was not replied though duly served on the accused. 15. Thus, the learned Trial Magistrate raised the presumption under Section 139 of N I Act in favour of complainant; but to rebut the said presumption there is no defense evidence placed on record. 16. Under such circumstances, recording the order of conviction and imposing the fine amount of Rs.15,10,000/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2378 CRL.RP No. 100365 of 2023 is just and proper and requires no interference before this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 17. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM/CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3