- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:523 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100058 OF 2025 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RACHAPALLI RAMU S/O NAGESHWARARAO AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS, R/O. JANGAMARA KALGUDI VILLAGE, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: Y. VENKATARAO S/O SUBBARAO AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O TAMARAALLI CAMP, POST. MUSTHOOR, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SEETHALAXMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 397 R/W. UNDER SECTION 438 R/W UNDER SECTION 442 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.01.2025 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 18/2023 BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL (SITTING AT GANGAVATHI) AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29.09.2023 MADE IN C.C.NO. 710/2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATHI THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:523 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Seethalaxmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. B. Sharanabasawa, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2023 passed in C.C. No.710/2019 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati1, whereby, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.18/2023 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal3 vide its judgment dated 09.01.2025. 3. Facts of the case in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 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:523 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2025 3.1. A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to be filed alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of a dishonoured cheque in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with an endorsement “funds insufficient” which was given towards repayment of the loan amount on 13.01.2015. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, secured the presence of the accused, recorded the plea and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The complainant got examined himself as PW1 and nine documentary evidence were placed on record by Ex.P1 to P9 comprising of original dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, statutory notice, legal notice, postal acknowledgment and endorsement. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined as DW1 and he has produced two chits as Ex.D1 and D2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:523 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2025 5. Learned Trial Magistrate after considering the probative value of the material evidence placed on record, convicted the accused and sentenced the accused as under: “Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,60,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Further, acting U/Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., out of fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five lakh Fifty thousand only) on recovery, shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. Further Rs.10,000/- is confiscated to the State. The bail bond and surety bonds are stands cancelled.” 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.18/2023. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:523 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2025 7. The First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, dismissed the appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2025, inter alia holding as under: “Invoking the provisions of Section 386 of Cr.P.C., this Criminal Appeal filed U/Sec.374(3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence in C.C.NO.710/2019 dated 29.09.2023, on the file of Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi is hereby confirmed. Appellant/Accused is hereby directed to appear before Trial Court to deposit the fine amount or to serve the sentence. Office is hereby directed to send the true copy of this Judgment along with TCR’s to the above said Trial Court for necessary information and action, forthwith.” 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused is before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:523 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2025 accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and hence, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 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 evident that the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N. I. Act. The documents marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 have not been properly proved. As such same would be insufficient to discharge the burden cast upon the accused. 13. Further, the oral testimony of DW1 did not rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant, especially having regard to the fact that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to the accused, signature found therein is that of the accused and was admittedly dishonoured with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:523 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2025 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no legal issues are involved nor any jurisdictional errors are pointed out so as to revise the orders passed by both the Courts in convicting the accused. 15. 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:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 34