- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1058 CRL.RP No. 100287 of 2023 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. 100287 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. SURYANARAYANA CHILKURI S/O CHILKURI SURYAANARAYANA AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS, R/O. HOSAKERA, POST. HOSKERA, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN. 583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAJASHEKAR S/O RATNARAO, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR, RAJASHEKHAR POULTRY FARM, NEAR NH-13, HARIHAR ROAD, RAYARKERRI HOSPET, POST. HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY PIN-583201. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21/2022 WHICH CONFIRMED THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL IN C.C.NO. 1147/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PRESENT PETITIONER FROM THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1058 CRL.RP No. 100287 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Respondent served with the notice and remained unrepresented. 3. Accused is the revision petitioner, challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811 and directed to pay fine of Rs.9,03,733/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.9,00,000/- which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.21/2022. 4. Brief facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 5. Accused borrowed hand loan of Rs.8,50,000/- and towards the repayment issued the cheque marked at Ex.P1 in a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-, which on presentation 1 For short, ‘N.I. Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1058 CRL.RP No. 100287 of 2023 came to be dishonored and there was no compliance to the statutory notice. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities recorded the evidence of the complainant and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused and imposed fine of Rs.9,03,733/- and was ordered Rs.9,02,733/- to be paid as compensation to the complainant and remaining balance of Rs.1,000/- was awarded to the State as defraying expenses. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the Principal Judge Family Court, Koppal2 in Criminal Appeal No.21/2022. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned judgment dated 07.10.2022 dismissed the appeal. 2 For short, ‘the First Appellate Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1058 CRL.RP No. 100287 of 2023 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused. 11. He would further contend that oral evidence of the accused is not properly appreciated by the Trial Magistrate which was mechanically accepted by the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. This Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque is belonging to the revision petitioner and signature found therein is that of the accused. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1058 CRL.RP No. 100287 of 2023 14. Therefore, initial burden is discharged by the complainant by leading oral evidence and producing the documentary evidence on record. 15. The material on record would also show that the income tax returns has been filed on behalf of the complainant to show that there was a lending of the hand loan and towards the repayment, accused has issued the cheque. 16. But, there is no documentary evidence placed on record by the accused and oral testimony of the accused which is nothing but self-serving testimony alone would not be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N. I. Act. 17. Therefore, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh3, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 3 (2023) 10 SCC 148 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1058 CRL.RP No. 100287 of 2023 18. Having said so, imposing of fine amount of Rs.1,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law. 19. Accordingly, the following: 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 N.I. Act, fine amount of Rs.9,03,000/- is reduced to Rs.9,02,000/-. (iii) The entire amount of Rs.9,02,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. (iv) The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate as defraying expenses to the State, is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1058 CRL.RP No. 100287 of 2023 (v) Office is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court for issuance of modified conviction warrant. (vi) Time is granted for the accused to pay the balance amount till 20.02.2026. (vii) 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.: 28