- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282 CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100093 OF 2024 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI RAJENDRA S/O SHANKTAPPA KOKATNUR AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SERVANT, R/O. FLAT NO 204, 2ND FLOOR, MAHALAXMI ELEGANCE APARTMENT, RAJEEVNAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST DHARWAD 580021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI ANANT S/O SHRIPATRAO KULKARNI, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SERVANT, R/O FLAT NO 301, 3RD FLOOR, ROTSON SAI PRIDE FLORA APARTMENT, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST DHARWAD 580021. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANIKANTHA HALLUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRL. APPEAL NO.5108/2023 DATED 08.02.2024 MODIFYING THE ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE 1ST JMFC, HUBBALLI IN C.C. NO.3391/2021 DATED 29.09.2023, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT. 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: 2026.02.02 17:04:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282 CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Sachinand M. Patil, appearing for revision petitioner and Sri.Manikantha Hallur on behalf of Sri.Chetan Limbikai, appearing for respondent. 2. The accused in C.C.No.3391/2018 is the revision petitioner, having suffered an order of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act1 and directed to pay sum ₹31,02,900/- as fine. The said conviction and sentence came to be confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5108 of 2023. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost, necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The complainant contended that he intended to purchase a house or a site, and at that juncture, accused was introduced to him by Sri.Hanuman Kulkarni of Hubballi, who was engaged in real estate business. After sufficient negotiation, the accused represented that he had 1 Hereinafter referred to as (the N.I.Act,) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282 CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024 obtained a house from the Karnataka Housing Board and collected sum of ₹15,46,450/- and wanted to sell the same. However, the sale transaction did not materialise and therefore, the complainant demanded the refund of the said amount. 4. At that juncture, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.204688 dated 24.12.2020 for a sum of ₹15,46,450/-, drawn on AXIS Bank, Dharwad Branch. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonored with the endorsement ‘account blocked a situation covered in 2125’. 5. Legal Notice was caused by the complainant to the accused, which was duly served. However, there was neither reply nor compliance. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking appropriate action. 6. After due trial, learned trial Judge convicted the accused and imposed fine of ₹31,02,900/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.5108 of 2023. 8. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records noted that no proper reasons are assigned for imposing double the cheque amount as the fine amount and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282 CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024 modified the sentence by directing the fine amount to be paid in a sum of ₹19,00,000/- of which sum of ₹18,90,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and sum of ₹10,000/- towards the defraying expense of the State. 9. The complainant has not filed any revision petition seeking enhancement of fine amount or challenging the modification. It is only the accused, who has preferred the present revision. 10. Sri.S.M.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds of the petition, vehemently contented that both the Courts have not properly taken note of the probative value of Exhibit D-1, which is a statement said to have been given by the PW-1 before the police, when the accused has filed a criminal complaint against the accused. 11. Therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt to the tune of ₹15,00,000/-, as PW-1 had specifically admitted in Exhibit D-1 that the accused was due only a sum of ₹12,06,100/-. Therefore, the very basis of the complaint itself is incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282 CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly there is no defence evidence placed on record. The probative value of Exhibit D-1 has been taken note of by both the Courts. The exact amount due ought to have been established by the accused by stepping into witness box. However, he chose not to do so. What prevented him from leading the defence evidence remains unexplained. 15. Taking note of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.2, when once a cheque belonging to the accused is dishonored and the signature therein is not disputed, the complainant is entitled to the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. 16. No doubt, such presumption rebuttable. However, in the present case, except for making few suggestions in the cross-examination of PW-1 and producing Exhibit D1, no other material has been placed on record to rebut the said presumption. 2 (2014) 5 SCC 590 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282 CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024 17. Admittedly, the complaint said to have been recorded by the concerned police, wherein the complainant was examined, has not been placed on record. Likewise, the author of Exhibit D-1 has not been examined by the accused. 18. Taking note of these aspects, the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court observed that there was no proper basis for imposing double the cheque amount as fine and accordingly modified the sentence. 19. The accused did not choose to place any additional material evidence on record before the First Appellate Court. As such, this Court is of the concerned opinion that the statutory presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, has not been properly rebutted and Exhibit D-1, by itself is not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. 20. However, the imposition of a sum of ₹10,000/- towards defraying the expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law, in view of the fact that the lis is purely between private parties and there is no State machinery is involved. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282 CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024 21. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the fine amount awarded by the trial Magistrate and modified by the First Appellate Court in a sum of ₹19,00,000/- is further modified into a sum of ₹18,90,000/-. (iii) The entire sum of ₹18,90,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. (iv) The balance sum of ₹10,000/- imposed towards defraying the expense of the State is hereby set-aside. (v) Time is granted till 28.02.2026 for the revision petitioner to pay the balance amount. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282 CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024 (vi) The office is directed to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of the modified conviction warrant. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/- CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8