- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100089 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MANJUNATH B. SUNAGAR AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, C/O. LOKESH SUNAGAR, KALAKAR ONI, HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI, PIN 581104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: JANASPNDANA MAHILA VIVIDHODESHAGALA SEVA SANGH REPRESENTED BY SMT. JYOTI W/O. NAGARAJ HANGAL, AGE. 34 YEARS, R/O. MUNDARGI 582118, DIST. GADAG. …RESPONDENT (BY MISS. KAVYA YELIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE TRIAL COURT AND APPELLATE COURT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, GADAG IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18/2020 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDARAGI IN C.C.NO. 423/2017 AND THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/SEC. 138 OF N I ACT, 1881. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.16 16:23:17 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.G.N.Narasammanavar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss. Kavya Yeligar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.H.N.Gularaddi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.423/2017 dated 17.03.2020 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mundaragi, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.18/2020 dated 03.01.2023 on the file of I Additional Principal Family Court, Gadag is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A private complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused is authorized person dealing with the affairs of Shree Ganga Education Trust, Bailhongal. Complainant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 Sangh has moved an application seeking grant of permission to organize DTP and computer training programs for muslim women under Karnataka State Wakf Foundation of Women Development Scheme 2014–15. Accused/trust on 01.10.2014, as per the permission No.18/2014-15, has granted permission by acknowledging Rs.5,000/- from the complainant Sangh to conduct the training to the selected candidates. 3.2. It is further contended that as per the directions issued by the accused, complainant has imparted six months training to the selected trainees and submitted all the records to the accused for sanction of funds. 3.3. In this regard, accused has issued a cheque signed by the accused personally in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 20.10.2016 towards expenditure to conduct the programs. Said cheque came to be dishonored on the ground ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. Thereafter, complainant sought for action against the accused. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, Trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, Smt.Jyothi, W/o Nagaraj Hanagal, is examined as P.W.1 and placed on record eleven documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 11, comprising of resolution letter, cheque, Syndicate Bank memo, copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, postal cover, list of selected tailoring trainees, list of selected computer trainees, photographs and compact disc. 6. As against the evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and placed on record fourteen documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to 14 comprising of certified copy of the order passed by the Wakf Board, certified copy of two resolutions, letter of Karnataka Wakf Board, letter given to Minority Office, Gadag, by Wakf Board, certificate of registration, declaration of Public Trust of Sri Ganga Education Trust, letter given to Karnataka Wakf Board, notarized copy of bank passbook of accused, letter given by accused to Syndicate Bank, Bailahongal, letter via e-mail, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 information given by Syndicate Bank, Bailahongal Branch, and received copy of the application. 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused and sentenced as under: “Exercising the power u/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused by name Manjunath B.Sungar, is convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is sentenced with fine of Rs.6,25,000/-. Out of the fine amount, Rs.6,20,000/- shall be paid to the complainant-Sangh as compensation in compliance with Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. and an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be confiscated to the State. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Bail and surety bonds stand cancelled.” 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal in Crl.A. No.18/2020 on the file of the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal of the accused through considered judgment dated 03.01.2023. 10. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds: • “It is submitted that, the Trial Court without any materials has wrongly held that respondent/complainant Sangh has imported the training program. It has wrongly appreciated the construed Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 and came to wrong conclusion that the respondent/complainant Sangh has conducted the training program as entrusted to it. The observations and findings given by Trial Court unwarranted and unjustifiable. • It is submitted that, petitioner/accused has taken contention before the appeal court contended that as per the respondent/complainant itself the petitioner/ accused is as charitable trust, same is not association of individual as contemplated U/s.141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and also contending that proceedings U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be initiated against it. Further contended that petitioner/accused is not the chairman of the said trust and authorized person to transact with the respondent/complainant regarding the alleged - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 subject matter of interesting the training program. Further contended that taking cognizance of the alleged offence against the innocent petitioner/accused and impugned conviction is bad in law. These contentions are not considered by the appellate court and confirmed the order of the Trial Court without giving the well reasons. Hence order of the 1st appeal court is unwarranted and unjustifiable. • It is submitted that, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 had been wrongly relied by the Trial Court and came to the wrong conclusion. Those, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 are created and concocted documents only to initiate the criminal action against the petitioner/accused. In this regard the observations and reasons have given by the Trial Court is baseless and not sustainable in the eye of law, without consider the contention of the petitioner/accused the appellate court dismiss the appeal and confirmed the Trial Court judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law, interference of this Hon'ble Court is necessary in the interest of justice and equity. • It is submitted that, the petitioner/accused has taken the contention before appellate court as per the case of the respondent/complainant petitioner/accused said to be given cheque in question on 20/10/2016, but earlier to that on 11/07/2016 accused had given intimation to his banker to stop the payment as much as including cheque in question and other four - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 cheques have been forcibly taken by somebody. In this regard Trial Court wrongly construed the Ex.D11, Ex.D12, Ex.D13 and Ex.D14 and burden has been wrongly shifted upon the petitioner/accused. Without considering this contention the appellate court is dismissed this appeal with cost without valid reasons. It is miscarriage of justice, the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and appellate court are not sustainable in eye of law, both judgments and orders are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity. • It is submitted that, the respondent/complainant has not produced any documents to show that the petitioner/accused is the chairman of Shri. Ganga Education Trust, Bailahongal. The respondent/ complainant have not proved by producing document, has imported training and submitted all records to petitioner/accused for grant of funds. The respondent/complainant has not produced the material document like attendance certificate, rent deed, etc. Further the petitioner/accused has taken the contention before the Trial Court and appellate court that the documents marked by the respondent/complainant are created and self serving one. Without any valid reasons this contention is denied by the Trial Court and also 1st Appellate Court and convicted the petitioner/accused even there is no proof to show that petitioner/accused has issued the cheque for legally recoverable debt. For this reason - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 only this Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and appellate court in the interest of justice and equity. • It is submitted that, Trial Court and Appellate court have failed to notice that the evidence of respondent /complainant was not corroborated with any independent witness and the respondent/complainant has failed to prove the case, as such accused was entitled for acquittal. • It is submitted that, the Trial court ought to have acquitted the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, holding that the respondent/complainant utterly failed to prove the guilt against the petitioner/accused. • It is submitted that, Appellate Court ought to have set aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting the petitioner/accused. • It is submitted that, Trial Court and Appellate court ought to have drawn an inference in favor of the petitioner/accused by giving the benefit of doubt in favor petitioner/accused and ought to have acquitted the petitioner/accused failing which miscarriage of justice. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 • It is submitted that, Trial court and Appellate Court have wrongly comes to the conclusion that the respondent/complainant has proved the case against the petitioner/accused without looking to the evidence on record. Hence, it is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. • It is submitted that, Trial Court and lower appellate court have tried to make out their own case without giving any materials on record. • That, the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court and Appellate court is not consonance with the oral or documentary evidence as the same is passed only on presumption which is contrary to law, hence orders of both the courts are liable to be set aside. • It is submitted that, the Appellate court has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case including grounds urged by the petitioner/accused and appellate court was please to confirm the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial court by dismissing the appeal. • It is submitted that, both the courts have failed to follow the fundamental principles of law laid down U/s.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. • That, it is submitted that, reasons assigned by the trial court and appellate court for conviction the petitioner - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 accused unreasonable and unjustifiable, judgments of both courts are resulted in miscarriage of justice.” 11. Sri G.N.Narasammanavar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that, complainant, no doubt, approached the accused for conducting the work shop. But they did not furnish necessary documents. Therefore, permission was revoked and as such, there was no legally recoverable debt. The cheque in question was forcefully extracted by the complainant when the complainant and few others had attended Ambigara Chowdaiah Jayanthi programme. 12. In that regard, he has filed a police complaint, so also issued ‘stop payment’ instructions to Syndicate Bank, Bailahongala Branch. As such, cheque has been dishonoured with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. Therefore, conviction of the accused by both the Courts has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 13. Learned counsel further contended that the police failed to take any action and therefore, he did not pursue further - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 about misappropriation of the cheque which has been forcibly extracted and as such, sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. He also contended that without impleading the Trust as a party to the proceedings, conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is bad in law. 15. In that regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhavathi K.R. and another vs. Sri Lokesh reported in (2020)4 KCCR 2518. 16. Per contra, Smt.Kavya Yeligar, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 17. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration. (i) Whether the complainant is successful in establishing that the revision petitioner/accused has - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? (ii) Whether accused has placed necessary rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? (iii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity thus calling for interference? (iv) Whether the sentence is excessive? (v) What Order?” 19. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) to (iii): In the case on hand, cheque marked at Ex.P.2 belonging to the accused is not in dispute. It is pertinent to note that cheque is issued in the personal capacity of the accused and not for and on behalf of the Trust. The cheque is dated 20.10.2016. The cheque came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. 20. Granting permission to conduct the training programme is admitted by the accused in his examination-in- chief itself. However, according to the accused, training programme did not take place as he has revoked the permission. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 21. Complainant, in order to substantiate that the training is completed, not only necessary documents are placed on record, but also photographs to show that the programme was inaugurated and people who have participated in the said programme, has been placed on record. 22. Further, according to the accused, cheque was forcefully extracted by the complainant when Ambigara Chowdaiah Jayanthi was celebrated on 09.07.2026 at Narasingapura. 23. The stop payment instructions issued by the accused marked in Ex.D.11 is dated 11.07.2016. The alleged complaint to the police is not found in the records. 24. According to the accused, police refused to take the complaint. He admits in his cross-examination that he did not complain to the Superintendent of Police in writing. He specifically admits in his cross-examination that he did not issue legal notice in respect of forcible extraction of the cheque and no private complaint was filed in that regard. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 25. It is pertinent to note that, if cheque is forcibly extracted by the complainant on 09.07.2016, nobody would keep quiet till 20.10.2016. Further, even after the case came to be filed, there is no attempt to file private complaint or any positive action taken by the accused against the complainant. 26. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge noted that the complainant has proved that training programme was conducted for a period of six months and amount that was required to be paid is the amount payable by the accused to the complainant for the training programme as per the permission granted by the accused which is admitted by the accused. 27. However, according to the accused, permission was revoked. To show that the permission was revoked, there is no material document placed on record by the accused. Therefore, presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is invoked by the learned Trial Judge and defence evidence was not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 28. More over, for effective implementation of ‘stop payment instructions’, it is necessary for the accused to maintain balance in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in his bank account. Then only, ‘stop payment’ will be valid. Otherwise, it should be presumed that the dishonour of the cheque is for the reason of ‘insufficient funds’. 29. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.D.11, accused is talking of forcible extraction of six cheques. But only one cheque is the subject matter of the present revision petition. If that is so, what happened to remaining five cheques is not forthcoming on record. 30. It is also pertinent to note that in Ex.D.11, name of the persons who forcibly extracted the cheque from the custody of the accused is not mentioned. What has been mentioned is ‘PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ’ meaning thereby ‘some persons’. 31. Thus, if this document is to be accepted, who are the persons other than the complainant who extracted the cheque forcefully from the custody of the accused is not forthcoming. Accused also admits that his relatives were present and 10 to 15 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 other persons had gathered when the altercation took place before the cheques were forcibly extracted from him. None of those persons are examined to establish that complainant has forcefully extracted the cheque. 32. Therefore, the defence that has been taken by the accused that there was forceful extraction of the cheque is not proved by placing at least plausible evidence on record. 33. Further, as stated supra, cheque in question is issued in the personal capacity of the accused and not for and on behalf of the Trust. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is not applicable to the case on hand. 34. In view of the same, the learned Trial Magistrate convicting the accused and the First Appellate Court upholding the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is just and proper. 35. In view of the foregoing discussion, point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative, (ii) and (iii) in the negative. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 36. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): As against cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, learned Trial Magistrate has awarded fine amount of Rs.6,25,000/- of which Rs.6,20,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. Since lis is privy to the parties, imposition of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, same needs interference. Accordingly, point No.(iv) is answered partly in the affirmative. 37. REGARDING POINT No.(v): In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.(i) to (iv), the following: ORDER i. Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.6,25,000/- is reduced to sum of Rs.6,20,000/-. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1943 CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2023 iii. Entire amount of Rs.6,20,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. iv. Sum of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside. v. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. vi. Balance amount to be paid by the revision petitioner on or before 20th February, 2026. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with the copy of this order forthwith, for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV paragraphs 1 to 4, kcm paragraphs 5 till end. Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 76