- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100005 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: SADIQ HANCHINMANI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.52, R.S. NO.1047/1A BESIDE FRUIT MARKET, BELAGAVI DSIT. BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: POPULAR CONCRETE PRIVATE LTD., REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. PRASHANT JOSHI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O CCB NO. 110/1 CONGRESS ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. (438 R/W 442 OF BNSS), SEEKING SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.06.2024 PASSED BY THE JMFC-VI, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.30/2020 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.10.2024 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.183/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.04 12:57:47 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Anand Ashtekar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner challenging the judgment dated 04.06.2024 passed in C.C.No.30/2020 by the JMFC-VI, Belagavi1, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.183/2024 by the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi3 vide judgment dated 30.10.2024. 3. The accused has been sentenced by the learned Trial Magistrate as under: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1 For short, ‘the Trial Court’ 2 For short, ‘N.I. Act’ 3 For short, ‘the First Appellate Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,72,948/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Invoking powers vested under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. out of the total fine amount of Rs.2,72,948/-, the accused shall pay a sum of Rs.2,70,948/- to the complainant as compensation and amount of Rs.2,000/- shall stand vested with the state. Bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.” 4. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: In respect of the dishonoured cheque, criminal prosecution was launched by the respondent. After completing the necessary formalities, learned Trial Magistrate secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore, trial was held. 5. Complainant was examined himself as PW1 and thirteen documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Cross examination of PW1 did not yield any positive answers so as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 6. In view of the fact that the cheque belongs to the accused and that the signature found therein is that of the accused, and further considering that, for the reasons best known to the accused, he did not step into the witness box nor placed any documentary evidence on record, and he has failed to rebut the statutory presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 7. Under such circumstances, learned Trial Magistrate taking note of the relevant aspects of the matter, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalamani Tex and Another V/s. P. Balasubramanian4, convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.183/2024. 4 (2021) 5 SCC 283 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material on record, did consider the scope of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Bhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another5 and noted that the answers elicited in the cross examination were not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and hence, dismissed the appeal. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds:  “The trial court as well as the first appellate court committed an error in not considering the fact that the accused/revision petition had executed signature on blank cheque as security and the complainant company has filled the cheque and used the same and as such the proviso of section 138 of NI Act is not attracted. 5 (2019) 18 SCC 106 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025  The trial court as well as the first appellate court erred in not considering the fact that there was a credit purchase by the petitioner and in all the cases of payment, mode of payment by RTGS and never by cheque. This clearly indicates that, the cheque was not issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt. For securing the credit purchase the complainant company received two cheques from the petitioner. One of those cheque is misused by the complainant company.  The trial court as well as the first appellate court erred in not considering the fact that after first dishonour, the petitioner paid Rs. 50,000/-. But the same is not shown in the complaint and it vitiates the proceedings. Hence the impugned judgement and order conviction and dismissal of the appeal passed by the courts below deserves to be set-aside.  The trial court and the first appellate court have erred in holding that in absence of legally recoverable debt being proved by the complainant the offence U/s 138 of NI Act is not attracted.  The trial court as well as the appellate court has without considering the statement of the revision petitioner and the evidence led by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 him has proceeded to convict the revision petitioner.  That, the court has not at all considered the statement of accused U/s 313 statement wherein he has clearly denied the all the incriminating statement appearing against him.  Looking from all angles the order of judgment of conviction and dismissal of the appeal passed by the courts below are bad in law are contrary to the settled principals of law. Under this circumstances the impugned judgement and order conviction and dismissal of the appeal passed by the courts below is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same deserves to be set-aside.” 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the complaint of the complainant has failed on technical reasons and the same has not been considered by both the Courts in accordance with settled principles of law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 12. He would further contend that mere non- examination of the accused would not ipso facto make out a case for the complainant to get an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 13. He would also contend that the First Appellate Court though considered these aspects of the matter by observing in its judgment, failed to allow the appeal resulting in miscarriage of justice and hence, sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly the cheque belongs to the accused and the signature found therein is that of the accused and there is no dispute about the same. 17. The cheque was presented for collection and it has been dishonoured with an endorsement as ‘funds - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 insufficient’. Again the cheque was represented for collection according to the complainant at the request of the accused. However, the same has been again dishonoured with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. 18. It is now well settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that mere endorsement of ‘payment stopped by the drawer’ would not absolve the liability of the accused unless he proves it before the Court that as on the date of dishonour of the cheque with a endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’, he had sufficient income in his account. Such evidence is to be placed on record by the accused. 19. In the case on hand, accused failed to make out such a case by producing the statement of his account whereby he can establish that he had sufficient reasons to issue stop payment as against the cheque that has been dishonoured earlier. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 20. Therefore, the technical argument that is sought to be advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law. 21. Having said so, since the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant, the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rightly invoked by the learned Trial Magistrate, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 22. Principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Bhai Jivanlal Patel (supra) would not be applicable to the case on hand. 23. Moreover, the question of leading the rebuttal evidence and what is the effect thereof, is the subject matter of the decision made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh6. Wherein it is specifically held that it is accused who is required to establish that there existed no legally recoverable debt. 6 (2023) 10 SCC 148 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1261 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2025 24. Accordingly, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed on record by the accused, the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court convicting the accused needs no interference that too in the Revisional jurisdiction. 25. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM / CT:ANB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 25