- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:405 CRL.RP No. 100271 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100271 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. SRIDEVI W/O SREENIVASULU AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING WORK, R/O. OLD BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, CAR STREET, BALLARI, TQ. BALLARI, DIST.BALLARI-583103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.M. MALLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: B. SHIVARAMA REDDY S/O. B. RUDRA GOUDA AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 6TH CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI, DIST.BALLARI-583103. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 25.08.2022 IN CC NO. 862/2018 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI AND CONFIRMATION JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2023 IN CRL.A NO. 61/2022 BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT ) BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS 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:405 CRL.RP No. 100271 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri D.M.Malli for Sri Gangadhar S.Hosakeri, learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent served with the notice and not chosen to engage any other advocate. 2. Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.862/2018 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.61/2022. 3. Facts of the case are as under: 3.1 In respect of the dishonored cheque issued by the accused, a private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’ for short). After completing the necessary formalities, learned trial Judge recorded the plea and since accused pleaded not guilty, recorded the evidence of the complainant. 3.2 The complainant got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P1 to P5 comprising of dishonour cheque, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:405 CRL.RP No. 100271 of 2023 bank endorsement, legal notice, postal receipt and postal assignment. Thus, discharged the initial burden. 4. Thereafter, for the reasons best known to the accused, he did not step into the witness box nor placed any documentary evidence and therefore, learned trial Judge raising the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, convicted the accused and imposed the fine of ₹1,40,000/- which is double the cheque amount and out of the same, ₹1,30,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and ₹10,000/- is ordered to be paid as defraying expense of the State. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.61/2022. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal on merits by impugned judgment dated 21.01.2023. Being further aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:405 CRL.RP No. 100271 of 2023 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri D.M.Malli representing Sri Gangadhar S.Hosakeri would submit that approach of both the courts is incorrect in convicting the accused and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 7. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the cheque is belonging to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 9. Admittedly, the cheque came to be dishonored for want of funds. Legal notice though served on the accused, there was no reply nor compliance. Producing the material documents and oral evidence, complainant discharged the initial burden to raise the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 10. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption, but to rebut the presumption, there is no contra evidence based on record - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:405 CRL.RP No. 100271 of 2023 nor any useful material is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1. 11. Accordingly, learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused. However, there are no special reasons for coming for imposing the double the cheque amount and payment of ₹10,000/- towards the defraying expense of the State. 12. Such an order needs interference in the fact that there is no State machinery involved in the case so as to order for defraying the expense of the State. To that extent, matter requires interference. 13. Hence, following order is passed: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part, while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. ii. Fine amount ordered by the learned trial Magistrate is reduced from ₹1,40,000/- to ₹1,30,000/-. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:405 CRL.RP No. 100271 of 2023 iii. The entire sum of ₹1,30,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation. iv. Sum of ₹10,000/- imposed by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expense of the State is hereby set aside. v. Time is granted till 31.01.2026 for the revision petitioner to pay the balance amount. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15