- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100364 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. JAGADISH S/O JYOTIBA JADHAV AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. PLOT NO.63, GURUKRUPA, VISHWAKARMA COLONY, SR.NO.692/1, NEAR J P FOUNDRY, RANI CHANAMMA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590006. &PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHEEBHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S PARULEKAR & COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI. ARUN S/O. VASANT PARULEKAR, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.40, BMCIEL, UDYAMBAG, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.B.PAWAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS- VIII, BELAGAVI IN C.C. NO. 223/2017 DATED 29/10/2021 AND IN CRL. APPEAL NO.241/2021 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI BY ITS ORDER DATED 20/07/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Miss.Sheebha for Sri Sunil S.Desai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.B.Pawar, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner challenging the conviction of the accused in C.C.No.223/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (8N.I. Act9, for short) and sentenced as under: <Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 08 months. Out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.7,98,000/- shall be payable to be complainant as compensation and Rs.2,000/- shall be adjusted towards the expenses incurred by the State. The bail bond and surety bond of the accused are hereby stands cancelled. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 Supply free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith. The money payable by virtue of this order shall be recoverable as fine under Sec. 431 of Cr.P.C. by procedure prescribed under Sec 421 of Cr.P.C. The accused given one month time to make payment.= 3. The validity of the sentence is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.241/2021. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by judgment dated 20.07.2022 dismissed the appeal. 4. Thereafter, accused is before this court in this revision on the following grounds. ø It is submitted that, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble appellate court has not verified the documents produced and has also not verified the cross examination. ø It is submitted that the appellate court below has misconceived in appreciating the facts which the trial failed to consider that the respondent/complainant has misused the by the accused to brother of Cheque given - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 respondent/complainant as security while being appointed as accountant in the partnership firm which is marked as Ex.D5 in the trial court below. ø The appellate court below did not consider the failure of the Respondent/complainant to prove the tallying of the accounts of Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.10 which showed that the complainant ought to have not placed the statutory audit report before the court to show the alleged misappropriation on the part of the Petitioner/accused and therefore the petitioner has rebut the presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. ø The learned Judge erred in completely overlooking the decision cited in the Bar and the arguments by the Accused/Appellant before the Trial Court and lower appellate court has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. Viewed from any angle the Judgment of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court are contrary to the evidence on record and on facts which are not forth coming on records. ø In spite of the fact that, the Complainant/Respondent has completely denied the issuance of Cheque in question, yet the learned judge holds that the complainant has not denied the issuance on record and completely ignoring the vehement denial of issuance of Cheque by the complainant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 ø Viewed from any angle the order of Judgment and conviction is perverse and illegal and contrary to the evidence on record the same needs to be set aside by acquitting the Accused/Appellant. ø The burden of proof on the accused is not heavy he need not disprove the prosecution case entirely. He can discharge the burden on the basis of admission made by the complainant and adverse inference drawn against him due to non production of statutory books of accounts in relation to transaction of question is in itself sufficient to liberty the presumption in favor of the complainant. ø To constitute an offence under section 138 of N.1. Act it is entirely for the complainant to have to prove that the subject Cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability failure on the part of the complainant to do so entitles dismissal of complaint. ø The learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in not exercising its judicial mind in appreciating the defense records documents of the accused/ appellant placed on according to well established judicial pronouncement. ø The Appellant submits that, if the Criminal Revision Petition is not allowed a great hardship would be caused to the Appellant, if it is allowed no hardship or injustice would be caused to the respondent and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 the Appellant has not filed any similar petition before this Hon'ble court earlier. ø The Appellant be permitted to urge the additional ground at the time of Arguments.= 5. Miss. Sheebha, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that the very complaint itself is not maintainable as the complainant was not authorized by the firm to initiate the criminal complaint against the accused. 6. She would further contend that Arun Parulekar had forcibly obtained a blank cheque when accused was discharging as an Accountant in the complainant firm and the same is misutilised and false case has been foisted which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 7. Per contra, Sri P.B.Pawar, learned counsel for respondent would support the impugned orders. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque marked at Exhibit P1 belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 10. Complainant has discharged the initial burden by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record and thereafter the burden shifted on the accused to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 11. To rebut the presumption available to the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW1 by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief wherein he has contended in paragraph No.6 that while he was working as an Accountant in the complainant firm, Mr. Anil Parulekar obtained a blank cheque from the accused and misutilised the same and therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt. 12. However in the cross-examination, he has admitted that from the year 2006 to 2014, he has worked in the firm of the complainant as Accountant with a monthly salary of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 ¹1,500/. He has specifically stated that he has got an account in State Bank of India, which is a personal account and the signature found in Exhibit P1 is that of his signature. 13. He admits that he has no impediment to place the passbook of his SBI account from the year 2010 to 2014, but he failed to produce the same. 14. He has also answered that he has no impediment to furnish the statement of his account for the aforesaid period. 15. Further, he has admitted tax on sales rates challans in his cross-examination which were marked as Exhibits D6 to D11. He admits that those amounts have been transferred from his personal account and for which the firm's cheque has been made utilised by him. 16. He also admits that whether the contentions taken in the examination-in-chief is incorrect or the transaction found in Exhibits D6 to D11 is correct, he has stated that he has paid the VAT charges from his personal account. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 Therefore, there is no mention of the same in the examination-in-chief. 17. In other words, there is a total deviation from the contents of examination-in-chief and the answers elicited in the cross-examination. 18. The answers elicited in the cross-examination would fortify the contentions urged on behalf of the complainant in misutilising the amounts of the firm by the accused and towards the repayment of the same, the cheque has been given. In other words, rebuttal evidence did not advance the case of the accused to any extent which has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial Judge by holding a detailed discussion on the probative value of the material evidence placed on record by both the sides. 19. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court even after re-appreciation did not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Magistrate which is just and proper. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:353 CRL.RP No. 100364 of 2022 20. Having regard to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, this court does not find any grounds whatsoever muchless good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 21. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 28