- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:973 CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100322 OF 2025 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PAWANKUMAR H. KAMBLE AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. SERVANT R/O. PLOT NO.41, SADASHIV NAGAR, OPP. AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, BELGAUM-590016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK A. MULWADMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: PRAVEEN DASHARATH SOMANNAVAR AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE R/O. PLOT NO.27, SEC.NO.9, M.M. EXTENSION, BELGAUM-590016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHEKHARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 R/W 442 OF BNSS, PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMFC VI BELAGAVI IN CC NO.212/2017 DATED 06/05/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL DIST. SESSIONS JUDGE COURT BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.174/2024 DATED 6/11/2024 MAY KINDLY BE SET-ASIDE THE PETITIONER THE ACQUITTED BY ALLOWING THE PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:973 CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri Abhishek A. Mulwadmath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhargouda M. Naganuri, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision petition is filed by the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.212/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”), which was confirmed in Crl. A. No.174/2024. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A private complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the accused. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:973 CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2025 4. It is the case of the complainant that in the first week of June 2015, the accused, who is a close friend of the complainant, approached him seeking a hand loa`n of Rs.4,00,000/-. Considering the friendship, the complainant advanced a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 18.06.2015 and a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.07.2015. 5. In this regard, the accused executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. The accused also executed two loan agreements in favour of the complainant on 18.06.2015 and 25.02.2016. 6. The accused had agreed to repay the hand loan within 15 days, but failed to do so. Towards repayment of the said loan amount, the accused issued a cheque drawn on State Bank of India, bearing No.075551 dated 21.03.2016, for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on 22.03.2016 with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.” 7. Immediately thereafter, the complainant caused issuance of a legal notice demanding payment of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:973 CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2025 cheque amount, which was duly served on the accused on 29.03.2016 and 30.03.2016. Despite service of notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking action against the accused. 8. The learned Trial Magistrate, after completing the necessary formalities, took cognizance, summoned the accused, and recorded the plea. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to trial. 9. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and produced 11 documents, including the dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, copy of legal notice, postal receipts, loan agreements, and promissory notes. 10. Thus, the complainant discharged the initial burden and raised the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. 11. Though the said presumptions are rebuttable, the accused failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence. Even the cross-examination of PW-1 did not elicit any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:973 CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2025 material to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The signature on Ex.P-1 (cheque) as well as on the promissory notes (Exs.P-10 and P-11) was admitted by the accused. 12. Considering these aspects, the learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and imposed a fine of Rs.6,56,000/-, out of which Rs.5,000/- was ordered towards defraying expenses of the State and Rs.6,51,000/- towards compensation payable to the complainant. 13. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl. A. No.174/2024, which came to be dismissed on merits by judgment dated 06.11.2024. Hence, the present revision petition. 14. Sri Abhishek A. Mulwadmath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that there is no proper documentary proof to establish that the accused had received the loan amount from the complainant, and therefore, the conviction is bad in law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:973 CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2025 15. He further contended that no special reasons were assigned by the learned Trial Magistrate for imposing a fine of Rs.6,56,000/-, and sought allowance of the revision petition. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgments. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and upon meticulous perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the cheque in question belongs to the accused and that the signature found on Ex.P-1 is not disputed. 18. Likewise, the signatures of the accused on the promissory notes (Exs.P-10 and P-11) and the loan agreements (Exs.P-8 and P-9) are also not in dispute. Hence, the complainant has discharged the initial burden and is entitled to the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. 19. To rebut the said presumptions, the accused has not placed any oral or documentary evidence on record. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:973 CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2025 answers elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 are insufficient to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant. 20. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgments rendered by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act do not warrant interference in revision.\ 21. However, it is noticed that the fine imposed includes an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State, though no State machinery was involved. Hence, the same requires interference. ORDER i. The Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is hereby maintained. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:973 CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2025 iii. The fine amount of Rs.6,56,000/- is reduced to Rs.6,51,000/-. iv. The entire amount of Rs.6,51,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. v. The amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. vi. The learned Trial Magistrate shall issue a modified conviction warrant accordingly. Amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the complainant upon due identification, if not already withdrawn. In view of the disposal of the revision petition, I.A. No.2/2025 stands consigned to records. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 53