- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:264 CRL.RP No. 100272 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100272 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. SRIDEVI W/O SREENIVASULU AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING WORK, R/O. OLD BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, CAR STREET, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST.BALLARI-583103. …PETITIONER (BY 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, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583103. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 25.08.2022 IN CC NO. 863/2018 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI AND CONFIRMATION JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2023 IN CRL.A NO. 62/2022 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 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:264 CRL.RP No. 100272 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Gangadhar S. Hoskeri, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. 2. Respondent served with the notice and remained absent. 3. Accused in C.C.No.863 of 2018 is the revision petitioner, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I.Act’) and the order directing him to pay a fine amount of ₹ 60,000/- of which ₹ 55,000/- was to be paid to the complainant and ₹ 5,000/- for defraying expenses of the State. 4. The order of the conviction was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2022. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal on merits by judgment dated 21.01.2023. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:264 CRL.RP No. 100272 of 2023 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that the petitioner did not lead the evidence and there was no fair opportunity granted to the accused for the purpose of leading the rebuttal evidence and therefore, sought for remitting the matter to the Trial Magistrate. 8. He also contended that the cheque was not issued towards the repayment of any debt, as is contended by the complainant, but it was misused by the complainant and thus, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 9. In view of the fact that respondent is served and remained unrepresented, this Court perused the material on record meticulously in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. came to be filed alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 11. The dishonored cheque, marked as Ex.P1 for a sum of ₹ 30,000/-, was issued by the accused to the complainant, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:264 CRL.RP No. 100272 of 2023 which was returned with an endorsement with ‘insufficient funds’. 12. There is no dispute that the signature in Ex.P1 is that of the accused. 13. Thus, the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by getting himself examined before the Court as PW-1 and placing the necessary documentary evidence on record, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, comprising the cheque, bank note, dishonor note, legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment. 14. In view of the discharge of the initial burden, the complainant enjoys the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. 15. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. However, to rebut the presumption, for the reasons best known to the accused, he did not step into the witness box nor place any documentary evidence on record. 16. Further, there is no contra material elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 which would probabilise that the cheque was not issued for a legally recoverable debt or other liability. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:264 CRL.RP No. 100272 of 2023 17. Under such circumstances, the order of conviction by the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, needs no interference. 18. However, the imposition of ₹ 5,000/- as the fine amount towards the defraying expenses of the State needs interference in this revision, as there is no State machinery involved in the case on hand. 19. Accordingly, the following ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the fine of ₹ 60,000/- is reduced to ₹ 55,000/-. (iii) The entire sum of ₹ 55,000 is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. (iv) The imposition of ₹ 5,000/- towards defraying the expenses of the State is hereby set-aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:264 CRL.RP No. 100272 of 2023 (v) Four weeks time is granted for payment of the balance of the fine amount. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 38