- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100361 OF 2024 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI SAMIUDDIN S/O NIJAMUDDIN BYAHATTI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHOP NO.2, KSRTC COMPLEX NEA RTO OFFICE SHIVAJI NAGAR BELAGAVI DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ARUN KUMAR SHIVACHARANDAS MALHOTRA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AMIT ARUNKUMAR MALHOTRA AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT NO. 202, 2ND FLOOR, SAI TOWER, APPARTMENT OPP. GOVT. GROUND RC NAGAR BELAGAVI TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. 2. KAMAL ARUNKUMAR MALHOTRA AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO. 202, 2ND FLOOR, SAI TOWER APARTMENT, OPP. GOVT. GROUND, RC NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.29 11:03:33 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 3. VANDANA HARISH TALWAR AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT NO. 202, 2ND FLOOR, SAI TOWER, APARTMENT OPP. GOVT. GROUND RC NARANG BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. 4. SUNNY ARUNKUMAR MALHOTRA AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O PLOT NO. 202, 2ND FLOOR, SAI TOWER, APPARTMENT OPP. GOVT. GROUND, RC NARANG BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASAD PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., R/W. SECTION 438 R/W. SECTION 442 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE X ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN CRL.A NO. 137/2024 DATED 13.09.2024 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JMFC CLASS V AT BELAGAVI IN CC NO. 523/2020 DATED 24.04.2024, AND FURTHER ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC 138 OF NI ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prasad Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The accused is the revision petitioner, challenging the order of conviction passed in C.C. No.523/2020 by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”), which came to be confirmed in Crl.A.No.137/2024. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell, which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition, are as under: A criminal prosecution was launched by the respondents against the petitioner by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. It is the contention of the complainant that he was running a battery-selling business under the name and style of “Arun Batteries” at Belagavi, and the accused was also engaged in a similar business under the name and style as “JK Batteries” at Shivajinagar, Belagavi. 5. The accused was a close friend of the complainant and, whenever the accused required money for business purposes, the complainant used to advance money in good faith, with the understanding that the same would be repaid after some time. 6. Accordingly, in the last week of May-2019, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to meet his immediate financial and business needs. The complainant transferred the said amount through RTGS to the account of the accused on 29.05.2019. 7. Towards repayment of the said amount, the accused issued Cheque No.818393 dated 29.02.2020 for a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, drawn on Syndicate Bank, KRCC Branch, Belagavi, in favour of the complainant. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on 04.03.2020 with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. 8. The dishonour was intimated to the accused, who assured the complainant that the cheque could be re- presented after two months and that it would be honoured. Accordingly, the complainant re-presented the cheque on 28.05.2020, but the same was again dishonoured with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by Drawer”. 9. A statutory notice dated 10.06.2020 was issued calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. The notice was served on 11.06.2020. Despite service of notice, the accused neither replied nor paid the amount. 10. On receipt of the complaint and after completing the necessary formalities, the learned Trial Magistrate recorded the plea and, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association & Others Vs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 Union of India & Others1, recorded the evidence of the parties. By judgment dated 24.04.2024, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,10,000/-, out of which Rs.6,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 11. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the original complainant expired, and his legal representatives prosecuted the matter. 12. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.137/2024 before the District Court. The learned Appellate Judge, after securing the records and hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal on merits. 13. Hence, the accused is before this Court in the present revision petition. 14. Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the grounds urged in the revision 1 (2014) 5 SCC 590 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 petition contended that the defence raised by the accused was not properly appreciated by the Courts below, resulting in miscarriage of justice. He sought allowing of the revision petition. 15. Per contra, Sri Prasad Patil, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the oral evidence of the accused and the documentary evidence placed on record were duly considered by the learned Trial Judge, particularly in paragraph No.33 of the judgment. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this revision and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 16. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel on both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material available on record. 17. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was transferred by the complainant to the account of the accused through RTGS. The issuance of the cheque and the signature appearing thereon, being that of the accused, are - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 also not disputed. The cheque was presented twice, as per the instructions of the accused. 18. On the first occasion, it was dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. On the second occasion, it was dishonoured with the endorsement “Stop Payment”. 19. It is a settled principle of law that when a cheque is dishonoured on account of stop payment, it is incumbent upon the drawer to establish that sufficient funds were available in the account on the date of issuance of the cheque. 20. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to show that, as on the date of issuance or stop payment of the cheque, sufficient balance was available in the account of the accused. This clearly indicates that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and not merely on account of stop payment. 21. Learned trial Judge has taken note of the judgment cited at the Bar and has also considered the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 defence evidence referred to in paragraph No.33, which reads as under: “33. I have perused above mentioned decision produced by the counsel for accused but, observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above decision are not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Because, herein this case admittedly alleged transaction is personal transaction and during the course of cross examination of DW-1 accused himself admits that he is the sole proprietor of J K Batteries. Such a circumstance making Firm as accused in this case is not required and section 141 of the Negotiable instruments Act does not applicable to the present case. Hence without made as a party to the said firm is not fatal to the complainant case. Hence arguments canvased by the learned counsel for accused not sustainable one and in the other hand arguments addressed by the complainant counsel is acceptable one.” 22. Since the accused has taken a false defence and has not been able to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the order of conviction passed by the trial Court, which has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 23. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned Trial Judge, following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in H. Pukhraj Vs. D. Parasmal2, imposed a fine of Rs.6,10,000/-. 24. Taking note of the fact that the amount was transferred through RTGS, that there was no repayment, that a false defence was taken, that the repayment has been unduly delayed, and that the original complainant is no more, imposition of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation is just and proper. 25. However, the imposition of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying the expenses of the State requires interference, as no State machinery was involved in the prosecution. 26. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed in part. 2 (2015) 17 SCC 368 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:895 CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2024 ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the fine amount is reduced from Rs.6,10,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-. iii. The entire sum of Rs.6,00,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. iv. The amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards defraying the expenses of the State is hereby set aside. v. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant/legal representatives upon due identification. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 39