- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100429 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SURESH MASANAGI S/O NINGAPPA MASANAGI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR OS SURESH ENTERPRISES RESIDING AT: NEHARU COLONY, 3RD CROSS, BHAYADAGI, HAVERI DISTRICT-581110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: M. KUBERA S/O M. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT HARAGINADONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT 583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D.B. KARIGAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397, R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED BY IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BALLARI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.42/2023 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 18.07.2023 PASSED BY PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI IN C.C.NO.1069/2020. OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.18 15:57:18 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 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.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.D.B.Karigar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.1069/2020 dated 18.07.2023 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.42/2023 dated 13.10.2023 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Exclusive Dedicated Commercial Court), Ballari is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. Revision petitioner has been prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the dishonoured cheque marked at Ex.P.1 in a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 3.2. After due trial, accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine of Rs.50,00,000/- of which sum of Rs.49,90,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.42/2023. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused has filed the present revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that complainant has utterly failed to prove the legally recoverable debt under Ex.P.1 – cheque. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 Therefore, very conviction of the revision petitioner is incorrect and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. He would further contend that accused has got examined himself as D.W.1, one more witness as D.W.2 and placed on record 21 documents to establish that on 05.03.2020, there was no purchase of the chilli at all from the complainant. Therefore, the cheque which was stolen by the complainant has been misused and wrong prosecution has taken place resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders. 10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, cheque marked at Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 12. Admittedly, cheque has not been sent to handwriting expert to establish that signature found therein is not that of the accused. 13. Defence taken by the accused is that said cheque is stolen. No action has been taken by the accused for the missue of the cheque even after he was served with the summons in the criminal case. 14. However, a belated reply came to be issued after filing the complaint. 15. In the said reply, it has been stated that Hero Honda Motorcycle belonging to the accused was taken away by the complainant wherein documents were kept and along with the documents, Ex.P.1 cheque was also kept which has been stolen by the complainant. If it is so, atleast criminal complaint ought to have been lodged by the accused. No such effort is made. 16. Further, to establish that chilli has been supplied to the complainant, Exs.P.15 to 30 are marked. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 17. Thus, complainant has discharged the initial burden to raise the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Said presumption is no doubt a rebuttable presumption. 18. In order to rebut such presumption, accused placed evidence on record as referred to supra. 19. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, he admits the signature on Exs.P.6 and 7/postal acknowledgements. 20. To a specific question, as to whether any complaint has been given to the bank about the loss of the cheque, witness has answered that on account of corona, bank was not functioning. On the contrary, what could be seen is the cheque is dishonored by the very same bank. 21. It is also noticed that Ex.P.1 is the cheque towards the purchase of chillis which has been placed on record. Exs.P.11 and 12 are the passbooks, Ex.P.13 is the statement of account in the Axis Bank and Ex.P.14 is the reply notice dated 15.09.2020. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 22. Admittedly, said reply is given after the complaint came to be filed. Exs.P.15 to 30 are the computer bills pertaining to Suresh Enterprises. 23. D.W.2 is the Manager of the accused. He has stated that there was a cordial relationship between the complainant and the accused. In his cross-examination, he admits that towards purchase of chilli, amount would be transferred through RTGS. 24. He also admits that sometimes if the chilli is purchased, towards payment of the same, cheque would be issued. He also admits that if somebody assures that they would sell the chilli, the cheque would be issued. He admits that Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused. 25. Thus, as could be seen from the material evidence placed on record, complainant has discharged the initial burden by placing the dishonoured cheque and the bills for having sold the chillis. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 26. To rebut the said presumption, accused came up with a theory that the cheque in question was stolen. It is specific contention in the reply notice which is issued by filing of the complaint. But surprisingly, no complaint is filed to the police about the misappropriation of the cheque even after the accused entered appearance before the Court and engaged the services of an Advocate. 27. A belated complaint is no doubt filed. No further action has been taken at Ex.D.20/acknowledgement issued by the Station House Officer, Byadagi. 28. It is also admitted by D.W.1 that he has not given any complaint to the bank that he lost the cheque. The explanation given by him in that regard is that bank was closed on account of Covid -19 Pandemic. If it is so, how the cheque got dishonoured is a question that remains unanswered. Moreover, on 05.03.2020, there was no lockdown. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 29. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, all that the explanation and the theory put forth in the form of defence that the stolen cheque has been misused, has not been established by the accused. Thus, conviction of the accused by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. 30. Having said so, since the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, imposition of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State needs interference in this revision. 31. Accordingly, 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is reduced to sum of Rs.49,90,000/-. iii. Entire amount of Rs.49,90,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. iv. Sum of Rs.10,000/- 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 petitioner on or before 28th February, 2026. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2279 CRL.RP No. 100429 of 2023 vii. 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 Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19