- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18630 CRL.RP No. 1679 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1679 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. ALFAREEZ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE MR. ABDUL ANWAR D. NO. 17-13-1089120, FLAT NO. 4, UNIVERSAL APPARTMENT, KAPRIGUDDE, NEAR KMC HOSPITAL, ATTAVAR, FALNIR, MANGALURU - 575 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARUN Y, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. SAHUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O MR. M. K. AHAMAD R/AT REHMATH MANZIL MARNABAIL, SAJIPA MUNOOR VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK - 574 231. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2025 IN Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18630 CRL.RP No. 1679 of 2025 CRL.A.NO.113/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE, DATED 14.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.298/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANTWAL, D.K., CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE CRL.A.NO.113/2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri.Varun Y, and Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for respondent are present. 2. At request of counsel for petitioner, matter is heard on merits, as the petitioner is unable to make any payment, he has only sought for modification of the sentence. 3. Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner seeking modification of the sentence, as admittedly the petitioner has failed to comply the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18630 CRL.RP No. 1679 of 2025 orders of the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 4. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 5. On such perusal of the material on record, the accused has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.298/2015 and sentenced as under; ORDER "Acting u/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and shall pay fine amount of Rs.6,58,000/-. In default to pay the fine amount, further he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is hereby ordered to pay Rs.6,53,000/- to the complainant being the compensation as per sec.357 of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18630 CRL.RP No. 1679 of 2025 6. The said judgment is a considered judgment after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties, noting that oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 was not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. The order of Trial Magistrate was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.113/2022, when the Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 01.09.2025. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision. This Court perused the materials on record, in the light of the arguments of parties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18630 CRL.RP No. 1679 of 2025 9. As already noticed, the petitioner is unable to make any payment of money in compliance of interim order to the respondent - complainant. 10. Taking note of the said aspect of the matter and also taking note of the defence taken by the accused have not been probabilised, the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too, in the revisional jurisdiction, as theory of misuse of cheque has been not probabilised by placing material evidence on record. 11. Pertinently, there is no criminal complaint against the complainant having misused the cheque. 12. As such, while maintaining the conviction, alternate contention of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on behalf of the accused needs to be considered in the revisional jurisdiction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18630 CRL.RP No. 1679 of 2025 13. Learned Trial Magistrate has ordered imprisonment as well as the fine amount as referred to supra. 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court confirmed the same without assigning proper reasons. 15. Pertinently, scheme and primary object of enacting the provision under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to recover the money covered under the dishonored cheque at the earliest and not to penalise a person. 16. Therefore, the order of Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs to be modified by this Court by exercising the discretionary powers vested with this Court under the revisional jurisdiction by directing default sentence. 17. Hence, the following; ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18630 CRL.RP No. 1679 of 2025 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and maintaining the fine amount, the order of imprisonment which has been passed by the Trial Magistrate along with the fine amount confirmed by the First Appellate Court, is hereby modified by directing the accused to pay the fine amount on or before 30th April, 2026, failing which, he shall undergo default sentence of one year simple imprisonment. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45