- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2551 CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100460 OF 2024 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI H.M. MAHANTESH S/O MALIYAPPA AGE 44 YEARS, OCC TRANSPORTER, R/O. 22ND WARD, SANKLAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK 583203, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI KORI PAKKIRAPPA S/O LATE KORI BHARMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR. R/O. BYLUVADDIGERE VILLAGE HOSAPETE TALUK 583223 VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. (438 R/W 442 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND ORDERS OF SENTENCE DATED 05.11.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) IN CRL.A. NO.5101/2023 CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 18.10.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAPETE IN CC NO.1383/2019 IN SO FAR AS SENTENCING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO PAY FINE OF RS.3,80,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.20 16:00:24 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2551 CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1383/2019. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “N.I. Act”) and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.3,80,000/-, out of which Rs.3,70,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards defraying the expenses of the State. The said judgment of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5101/2023. Being aggrieved, the accused has filed this revision petition. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2551 CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2024 The complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), alleging that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 17.04.2018 for his transport business, promising to repay the same. 4. Towards repayment of the said amount, the accused issued a cheque drawn on Union Bank of India, J.P. Nagar, Karganur, Hospet Branch. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured. Despite issuance of legal notice, the accused failed to comply with the demand made therein. 5. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Magistrate considered the defence taken by the accused that the cheque had been stolen. However, as no cogent evidence was placed on record to substantiate the said defence, the accused was convicted as stated above. 6. The accused challenged the said conviction before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.5101/2023. The learned Judge of the First Appellate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2551 CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2024 Court, after securing the records and hearing both parties, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the accused is before this Court in the present revision petition. 8. Sri Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the accused had adduced defence evidence, examined witnesses, and produced four documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. It is submitted that the said evidence was not properly appreciated by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and the appeal was dismissed mechanically. Hence, he seeks allowing of the revision petition. 9. Per contra, Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the complainant discharged the initial burden by producing the dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, and postal records. Therefore, the statutory presumption arose in favour of the complainant, and the accused failed to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2551 CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2024 rebut the same with cogent evidence. He therefore seeks dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and upon meticulous perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the cheque marked at Ex.P1 admittedly belongs to the accused and bears his signature. The legal notice was sent to the correct address of the accused. Though the notice was not served and returned cover is placed on record. Admittedly, there was no compliance by the accused. 11. The defence taken by the accused before the Trial Court was that the complainant had stolen the cheque from his custody. If it is so, nothing prevented the accused from initiating appropriate criminal action against complainant. No such action has been taken even after he came to know about the present proceedings. 12. Mere marking of a statement given by the accused in another case is insufficient to rebut the statutory - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2551 CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2024 presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 13. The probative value of the oral testimony of DW1 and DW2, coupled with documentary evidence Ex.D1 to Ex.D4, has been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court. 14. This Court does not find any legal infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below warranting interference in revision petition. 15. Accordingly, the conviction order deserves to be maintained. 16. However, since the lis is privy to the parties, imposition of fine amount of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State cannot be sustained, as no State machinery is involved. herefore, the same requires to be set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2551 CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2024 ORDER i. The Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintained. iii. The fine amount is reduced from Rs.3,80,000/- to Rs.3,70,000/-. iv. The entire sum of Rs.3,70,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. v. The sum of Rs.10,000/- imposed towards defraying the expenses of the State is hereby set aside. vi. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be released to the complainant under due identification, if not already withdrawn. vii. The balance amount shall be paid on or before 10.03.2026. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2551 CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2024 viii. In default of payment, the accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. ix. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of a modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC Ct-cm LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 59