- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100132 OF 2021 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. K. AMBUJA W/O. K. SATHYAPPA NAYAKA AGED 45 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SOKKE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: A. PATREVVA W/O. LATE MARULASIDDAPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HOUSEWHOLD, R/O. TOOLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01/03/2021 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.5007/2019 BY THE 3RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01/01/2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.962/2015 BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT KUDLIGI AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.13 15:47:44 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.962/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the N.I. Act”), which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5007/2019. 3. The facts, in a nutshell, necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows: 3.1. In respect of a dishonoured cheque issued by the accused, a criminal prosecution was initiated by the complainant by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) before the jurisdictional Magistrate. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 3.2. It was contended that the accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and, towards repayment of the said amount, issued a cheque bearing No.636192 dated 25.02.2015 drawn on Pragathi Gramina Bank, Sokke Branch. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient.” 4. A statutory notice was issued, which was neither complied with nor replied to by the accused. Thereafter, the trial was conducted after completion of the necessary formalities, during which the complainant examined himself and two witnesses, namely Shivakumar V.G., and Bhaskar. 5. On behalf of the complainant, thirteen documents were produced and marked, which included the dishonoured cheque, bank endorsements, legal notice, portal acknowledgment, and RTC extracts. 6. On behalf of the accused, two witnesses were examined, namely the accused himself and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 H.Neelagiriyappa, and the personal account book was marked as Ex.D1. 7. After hearing the arguments of both sides and upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,05,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying the expenses of the State. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.5007/2019. 9. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, after securing the records and hearing the arguments of the parties in detail, dismissed the appeal, inter alia, holding in paragraphs 14 to 17 as under: “14. One witness by name H.Neelagiriyappa is examined as DW-2 in his chief-examination he stated that he know the accused as she is the adjacent land owner. He know the son of complainant by name Manjunatha as he was owning pesticides shop and he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 was also purchasing the fertilizers from him. In the year 2014 when he went to purchase the pesticides in said shop on credit basis, at that time Manjunatha told him if he given cheque he will give the said fertilizers on credit basis. Accordingly he approached the accused-and requested her to give cheque, accordingly accused has issued cheque to him and he has given the said cheque to Manjuantha who is the son of the complainant. Thereafter he has make payments to the son of complainant in respect of purchasing of pesticides. Later on the said Manjunatha has misused the cheque and filed a false case against the accused. D.W.2 has produced Ex.D.1 personal account book to show that he has made payments to the son of complainant in respect of purchasing of pesticides. 15. On perusal of the documents, the accused has not denied her signature on the cheque marked as Ex.P.1 and belongs to her. And P.W.2 stated in his evidence that he issued Ex.P.2 and 4 endorsement as "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the accused. Complainant has issued legal notice to the accused on 13.06.2015 and the accused has not given any reply to the said notice. In the legal notice, the complainant has reiterated the complaint averments. 16. The dispute in the present case that the accused not issued the cheque Ex.Pl in favour of the Complainant. And she not having debt to complainant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 Further she issued the said Ex.P.1 to H. Neelagiriyappa S/o Hanumanthappa in order to help him in purchasing the fertilizers. To prove her case she produced of Ex.D.1. Further a perusal of Ex.D-1 which clearly discloses that there is no mention with regard to said H. Neelagiriyappa S/o Hanumanthappa purchasing of pesticides from Manjunatha nor issuing of cheque to him. Moreover as per the contention of the accused there is no mention in Ex.D-1 in respect of dates on which H. Neelagiriyappa S/o Hanumanthappa paid amount to Manjunatha. Further that Pw2 H. Neelagiriyappa S/o Hanumanthappa stated in the cross examination that he stopped the transaction with the son of the Complainant in the year 2003. It amounts that the accused taking false contention in the evidence of the proceedings. 17. The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the decisions reported in 1) ILR 2008 KAR 3635 in between K. Narayana Nayaka Vs. Sri. M. Shivarama Shetty and 2) 2009 (4) Civil L.J. 425 in between Smt Dipali Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal and others. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused carefully. With great respect to the principles laid down in the above said decisions, I am of the opinion that those decisions are not applicable to the present case on hand. In this case the accused has not proved that she issued the cheque Ex.P.1 to H. Neelagiriyappa S/o Hanumanthappa for the purpose of security for purchasing of pesticides to him. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 Hence, the above said decisions are not applicable to the present case on hand.” 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused has approached this Court in the present revision petition on the following grounds:  The impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below are contrary to law, facts and evidence on record, and as such the same are liable to be set aside.  The reasons assigned by both the Courts below, while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are erroneous and hence they have slipped into error and proceeded to pass the impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence, thereby resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice to the case of the petitioner.  It is submitted that, the Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the Respondent/Complainant had failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That being the case, the Courts below have committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the Petitioner.  It is submitted that, the courts below have lost sight of the fact that the Petitioner has satisfactorily rebutted the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 presumptions as per the requirements of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the Petitioner/ Accused has rebutted the presumptions by placing sufficient material on record, the courts below have committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the Petitioner.  Both the courts have failed to take note of the fact that as per section 138, proviso N.I. Act, cheque has to be presented within the period of three months from the date of its drawn, but in the present case the cheque was dated 25/02/2015 and the same was presented on 26/05/2015 and thus presentation of the cheque was after lapse of statutory period. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.  The learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Respondent has not followed the mandatory provision of law which are contemplated under the Negotiable Instrument Act.  The learned Magistrate ought to have held the evidence of the Respondent was not corroborated with any independent witness and the Respondent has failed to prove the debt and as such the Petitioner/Accused is entitled for judgment and order the acquittal. 21. The learned Magistrate was biased in convicting the Petitioner without appreciating the cross-examination and defense taken by the Accused/Petitioner. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021  It is submitted that, there are irreconcilable inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant, which goes to the very root of the case. It is submitted that when the said inconsistencies falsify the case of the complainant, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the Petitioner.  The Respondent has not proved that this Petitioner owed any legally dischargeable debt to him. Under the circumstances, there is no basis whatsoever for the Respondent in this matter.  It is submitted that, the sentence imposed by the Courts below is very harsh and as such the conviction judgment and order passed by the courts below are even otherwise illegal and liable to be set aside.  The appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below is illegal, erroneous and unsustainable.  Thus viewed from any angle, the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are even otherwise illegal, erroneous and unsustainable. 11. Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the courts below failed to properly appreciate the material evidence on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 record, inasmuch as the complainant had no financial capacity to lend a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused. 12. It is further contended that the cheque issued by the accused was misused by the complainant. Therefore, it was argued that the order of conviction is bad in law, and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra, Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that the RTC extracts placed on record conclusively establish the lending capacity of the complainant. 14. It is further contended that the defence evidence has been properly appreciated by the courts below and that there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record through the oral testimony of DW1 and DW2, coupled with the lack of probative value of Ex.D1. Hence, he sought dismissal of the revision petition. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the following points arise for consideration: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 i. Whether the complainant has successfully established all the ingredients necessary to attract the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and whether the conviction of the accused is just and proper? ii. Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court? iii. Whether the sentence imposed is excessive? iv. What order? 16. Point Nos. 1 and 2: In the case on hand, the issuance of the cheque at Ex.P1 and the signature found thereon being that of the accused are not in dispute. 17. PW2-Shivakuma V.G., who is the Manager of Pragathi Gramina Bank, was examined as a witness. In his cross-examination, he stated that even if a cheque is issued as security, the banker would not be aware whether it was issued towards security or otherwise. 18. Similarly, PW3-Bhaskar, has stated that when an account holder issues a cheque to a particular person, the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 banker would not be aware of the identity of the person to whom the cheque is issued. 19. Ex.D1 is a personal account book maintained by the accused. The same was produced to establish the defence that the cheque in question was allegedly issued to H.Neelagiriyappa, in order to assist him in procuring fertilizers. 20. Therefore, it was necessary for the accused to examine the said H.Neelagiriyappa to substantiate the defence, and accordingly, the accused examined H.Neelagiriyappa as DW2. 21. However, the said H.Neelagiriyappa, in his cross- examination, admitted that he had discontinued transactions with the son of the complainant in the year 2003. If that is so, the question of H.Neelagiriyappa handing over the cheque issued by the accused to the complainant, and the same being misappropriated by the complainant, cannot be countenanced in law. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 22. Even assuming that the cheque had been misappropriated by the complainant, no effort was made by the accused to lodge any criminal complaint against either the complainant or H.Neelagiriyappa for the alleged misappropriation of the cheque. 23. Therefore, when the defence evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is just and proper. 24. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and the negative respectively. 25. Regarding Point No. 3: Admittedly, lis is privy to the parties and no state machinery was involved. Therefore, the imposition of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying the expenses of the State requires interference in this revision petition. Hence, Point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 26. Regarding Point Nos. 1 to 4: In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as stated above, the following order is passed: 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 maintained. iii. The fine of Rs.3,05,000/- imposed by the trial magistrate and confirmed by the first appellate court is modified. The fine is reduced to Rs.3,00,000/-, which shall be paid on compensation to revision petitioner. iv. The sum of Rs.5,000/- imposed towards defraying the expenses of the State is set aside. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1927 CRL.RP No. 100132 of 2021 v. The amount in deposit is directed to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. vi. The office is directed to return the trial court records along with a copy of this order, and necessary action be taken for the issue of a modified conviction warrant. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 72