- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100123 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NABISAB S/O BABUSAB SHIRANJI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: HULAGI MAIN ROAD, HOSALINGAPUR, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL, PRESENTLY R/O: GANGIMADI, GADAG-582101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: MAHABOOBALI S/O RAJESAB ATTAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HALE KACHERI, GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CC NO.137/2012 ON THE FILE OF 1ST JMFC, GADAG AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14/02/2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 13/07/2017 PASSED IN CC NO.137/2012 ON THE FILE OF 1ST JMFC, GADAG CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The accused is the revision petitioner who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.137/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the N.I. Act”), which was confirmed in Crl.A. No.14/2007. 3. The facts, in a nutshell, necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as under: A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is contended that the accused, being acquainted with the complainant, borrowed a sum of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 Rs.4,10,000/- on 16.07.2010 for the marriage of his younger brother. 4. A loan document was executed in this regard and, towards repayment of the said amount, the accused issued Cheque No.198216 dated 11.11.2011, drawn on Vysya Bank, Gadag Branch. The said cheque, on presentation, came to be dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Hence, action was sought against the accused. 5. Therefore, a statutory notice was issued. As there was no compliance with the demands made in the notice, the complainant filed the complaint seeking action against the accused. 6. The said complaint was registered and, after due trial, the learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed a fine of Rs.4,15,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and the balance sum of rs.5,000/- was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 ordered to be paid towards defraying the expenses of the State. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A. No.14/2017. 8. The learned Judge of the first appellate court, after securing the records and hearing the arguments of both parties in detail, and upon re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed the present revision petition. 10. Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the complainant has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not have sufficient money to lend the loan amount, as could be seen from his evidence. 11. He has further admitted that he had taken money from Zakir Shirahatti and arranged a sum of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 Rs.60,000/- from his own sources and thereafter lent the money to the accused. 12. Therefore, the very basis on which the complaint has been filed is incorrect, and on that ground, he seeks allowing of the revision petition. 13. He would further contend that the defence evidence placed on record has not been properly appreciated by both the courts below, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice, and therefore seeks allowing of the revision petition. 14. Per contra, Sri S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that once the cheque is issued and the signature found therein is that of the accused, a presumption arises under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 15. Besides, marking the cheque, bank endorsement, the loan agreement has been marked in evidence. Therefore, the defence evidence is not sufficient to rebut - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 the statutory presumption, and he seeks dismissal of the revision petition. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 17. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noted that Exhibit P1-cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 18. Apart from the same, complainant has placed on record the loan agreement and marked the same as Ex.P7. Signature found in Ex.P7 is also not in dispute. 19. Under such circumstances, learned trial Judge was justified in raising the necessary presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 20. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption, but in order to rebut the same, accused got examined himself as DW1 and he also examined one Bheemsen Kumaste as DW2. Their oral evidence coupled with the documents marked at Exhibit D1 to D9 did not rebut the presumption - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 inasmuch as they have questioned the capacity of the complainant to lend the money. 21. Once the cheque is issued, under what circumstances it came to be issued is to be established by the accused. In that regard, in cross-examination of PW1, he admitted that He admitted that he borrowed ₹10,000/- from the complainant and the cheque is issued as a security. Likewise in the cross-examination of DW2, he has specifically admitted that he has not produced any acknowledgments for having paid the money inasmuch as the said acknowledgment or voucher would be with the persons who deposit the money to the bank. 22. Thus, the defence taken by the accused that he has repaid ₹10,000/- and therefore, cheque is misused did not get probablised. If it is a case of misuse of the cheque that has been issued for the purpose of security, it was for the accused to take necessary criminal action against the complainant. No such action has been taken by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 accused. Therefore, the defence is nothing but illusory and moonshine. 23. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 24. Having said so, imposition of ₹5,000/- towards the defraying the expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law as the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved. 25. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the fine amount of ₹4,15,000/- is reduced to ₹4,10,000/-. iii. The entire sum of ₹4,10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. iv. Imposing fine of ₹5,000/- towards defraying the expense of the State is hereby set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1600 CRL.RP No. 100123 of 2020 v. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. vi. Balance amount to be paid on or before 24.02.2026. vii. Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this judgment forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC/CLK CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41