- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1054 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 100121 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100120 OF 2024 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100121 OF 2024 IN CRL.RP.NO.100120/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. PRIYANKA NAGNATH KOLEKAR AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. H.NO. 1614, NEAR ITI COLLEGE, MAYEKAR NAGAR KHANAPUR 591302, TALUKA KHANAPUR AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI BHUSHAN S/O RAMCHANDRA PATIL AGE 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, KHANAPUR 591302 TALUKA KHANAPUR AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUJEET S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 (1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF A PROCEEDING IN THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 281/2023, FROM THE X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND IN THE CRIMINAL CASE NO.584/2019, FROM THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.12.2023, PASSED BY THE X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 281/2023, CONFIRMING THE Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1054 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 100121 of 2024 JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT, KHANAPUR, IN C.C.NO. 584/2019, DATED 05.09.2023, WHEREIN THE REVISION PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF THE N I ACT, MAY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. IA- 1/2024 FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE. IN CRL.RP.NO.100121/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. PRIYANKA NAGNATH KOLEKAR AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. H.NO. 1614, NEAR ITI COLLEGE, MAYEKAR NAGAR, KHANAPUR 591302 TALUKA KHANAPUR AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAMCHANDRA S/O. LAXMAN PATIL AGE 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, KHANAPUR 591302 TALUKA KHANAPUR AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUJEET S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 (1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF A PROCEEDING IN THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282/2023, FROM THE X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND IN THE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 585/2019, FROM THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KHANAPUR AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.12.2023, PASSED BY THE X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282/2023, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT, KHANAPUR, IN C.C.NO. 585/2019, DATED 05.09.2023, WHEREIN THE REVISION PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF THE N.I. ACT, MAY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE PETITONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1054 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 100121 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Ashok A. Naik, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Sujeet S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an Order of conviction in C.C.No.584/2019 and C.C.No.585/2019 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.281/2023 and Crl.A.No.282/2023 respectively, and sentenced as under: Sentence passed in C.C.No.584/2019: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.95,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Out of fine amount it is order to pay Rs.90,000/- to the complainant as compensation as provided under Section 357 of Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remit to the State.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1054 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 100121 of 2024 Sentence passed in C.C.No.585/2019: “Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,85,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Out of fine amount it is order to pay Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant as compensation as provided under Section 357 of Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remit to the State.” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petitions are as under: Revision Petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos.725303 and 725289 drawn on State Bank of India, Khanapur Branch in a sum of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively, to the complainant towards repayment of hand loan availed by the accused from the complainant, which on presentation, came to be dishonoured on 14.01.2019 and 29.01.2019. 4. The statutory legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to make good the amount covered under the cheques. Since the notice was neither replied nor compliance was made, complaint came to be filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1054 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 100121 of 2024 5. The Trial Court, after completing necessary formalities, recorded the evidence of the complainant and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused as referred to supra, taking note of the fact that there was no defence evidence placed on record to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 6. The validity of the conviction order was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.281/2023 and Crl.A.No.282/2023. Thereafter, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, considered the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another1 cited on behalf of the appellant and noted that no positive answers are elicited in the cross-examination which would be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in the absence of defence evidence and dismissed the appeals. 1 (2019) 18 SCC 106 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1054 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 100121 of 2024 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to properly appreciate the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petitions. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque marked at Ex.P1 is belonging to the revision petitioner and signature found therein is her signature. 12. According to the complainant, there was a hand loan transaction between the complainant and the accused. The accused had issued a cheque towards repayment of the said hand loan. 13. Thus, initial burden is discharge on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. But, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1054 CRL.RP No. 100120 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 100121 of 2024 for the reasons best known to her, accused did not choose to place any oral or documentary evidence on record. 14. Taking note of the same, the learned Trial Magistrate rightly convicted the accused and imposed fine as referred to supra, which is just and proper and requires no interference in these revision petitions. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Both the revision petitions are dismissed. (ii) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE Kcm-upto para 5 SMM-para 6 to till end CT-CMU / LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 9