- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1141 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI H CHANDRAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 44 YEARS, PEON IN IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT R/AT HANAGAVADI POST, HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHEKHARAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA AGED 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.04.2019 MADE IN C.C.NO.111/2016 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2021 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.40/2019 BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.111/2016 dated 04.04.2019 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.40/2019 dated 31.07.2021 is the revision petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of the dishonored cheque issued by the accused, complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking action against the accused. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, apart from examining the complainant, a witness by name Balakrishna Naiaka was examined as P.W.2 and placed on record seven documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7. 6. As against the evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and placed on record seven documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.7 comprising of two chits, legal notice, reply notices, postal receipts. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 7. Learned Trial Magistrate after hearing the arguments of the parties in detail, convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine amount of Rs.1,05,000/- of which sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid towards defraying expenses of the State. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.40/2019. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence placed on record inasmuch as there was only one transaction of borrowing of Rs.30,000/- by the accused which has been repaid as admitted by P.W.1 and a cheque and pronote which was given as security at the time of borrowing sum of Rs.30,000/- has been misused by the complainant to file the present false case and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the cheque in question and signature found therein is that of the accused. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 15. It is the defence of the accused that while borrowing sum of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant, he had given a signed blank cheque and a pronote which has been misused by the complainant after repayment of Rs.30,000/-. 16. It is found from the records in the cross- examination that there is an unequivocal admission by the complainant that he has received Rs.30,000/- from the accused. 17. However, the suggestion made to the complainant that he has misused the cheque and the pronote, which was retained by him, is denied by P.W.1. If the cheque in question is really misused by the complainant as is contended by the accused, nothing prevented the accused to file an appropriate complaint against the complainant and his Advocate – Jayappa, who said to have filled up the cheque and there is a misappropriation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 18. In fact, while issuing the reply notice also, there is no intended action sounded vide Ex.D.5. 19. No prudent person would keep quiet if a cheque in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is misused which was given in blank as against the loan amount of Rs.30,000/-. 20. Therefore, the material evidence placed on record by the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 21. Noting the same, learned Trial Magistrate has convicted the accused which has been rightly reappreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 22. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgments of the Courts below. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 23. However, since the lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, imposing sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State needs interference by this Court, in this revision petition. 24. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compensation amount ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- is reduced to sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. iii. Amount of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant on or before 20.03.2026 failing - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13180 CRL.RP No. 1141 of 2021 which the revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. iv. Amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands set aside. v. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37