- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:165 CRL.RP No. 100393 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100393 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SUNIL S/O. DEVARAM SHINDE PROPRIETOR SHINDE ENTERPRISES, BUSINESS ADDRESS R/O. PLOT 1491 CHINCHIMALA, MHETRI WASTI, CHIKHALI PUNE-411062 RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, R/O. KALYANI HOUSING SOCIETY, SANE COLONY, MOREWASTI, CHIKHALI B.K. CHIKHALI WAST PUNE-412114, MAHARASHTRA- STATE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: BALU S/O. VITHAL LOHAR AGED 59, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO.104, NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 OF CR.P.C. 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:165 CRL.RP No. 100393 of 2023 ORDER DATED 03.08.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99/2023 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09.03.2023 PASSED BY THE JMFC VII, BELAGAVI IN CC NO. 15/2020 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/REVISION PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT, 1881, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Deepak S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner challenging the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I.Act’ for short) in CC No.15/2020 dated 09.03.2023 on the file of VII JMFC, Belagavi, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.99/2023 dated 03.08.2023. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:165 CRL.RP No. 100393 of 2023 In respect of a dishonour of the cheque issued by the revision petitioner in a sum of Rs.6,60,000/-, a private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance of the offence and completing necessary formalities, recorded the evidence of the complainant and noting that there was no rebuttal evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.99/2023. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, secured the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 03.08.2023. 7. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court, in this revision petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:165 CRL.RP No. 100393 of 2023 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the transaction between the complainant and the accused is that of supply of a perforation machine and the machine is still with the complainant and he has not paid the entire value to the machine to accused. 9. He further contends that at the time of transaction, there was a cheque that was issued by the accused and the same is misused by the complainant to foist a false complaint and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, transaction of supply of perforation machine is not in dispute. So also the issue of the cheque and the signature found therein is that of the accused is not in dispute. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:165 CRL.RP No. 100393 of 2023 13. Thus, initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by placing necessary material evidence on record including the dishonored cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal cover and information letter received by the Postal Department. 14. Admittedly, there is no reply to the legal notice nor any defence evidence that was placed on record. 15. In view of the fact that the complainant has discharged the initial burden, burden to establish that the cheque was not dishonored for the purpose of legally recoverable debt is on the accused, who failed to produce any rebuttal evidence. 16. Therefore, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148, conviction order passed by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the limited revisional jurisdiction. 17. If the value of perforation machine is not paid as is contended by revision petitioner, his remedy lies elsewhere, same cannot be a ground to annul the impugned order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:165 CRL.RP No. 100393 of 2023 18. Accordingly, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 9