Narayana S/O Vitoba Haradekar Vs Shivakumar S/O Aminappa Sandigawad

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6449 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100068 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NARAYANA S/O. VITOBA HARADEKAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS/PATTAR, R/O. NEAR VIDYANAGAR WATER TANK, OPPOSITE HANAMANT TEMPLE, HUNGUND, TQ. HUNGUND-587118.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. NIRMALA B.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHIVAKUMAR S/O. AMINAPPA SANDIGAWAD, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB, R/O. AMARAVATI, TQ. HUNGUND-587118.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶16

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYAKALMATH Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.04.22 14:44:03 +0530

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.05/2023 DATED 09.10.2023 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND IN CC NO.551/2018 DATED 26.05.2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6449 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2024

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶23

Heard Smt.Nirmala B.G., learned counsel for

¶24

the revision petitioner and Sri.N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel for the respondent

¶25

Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’) in C.C. No.551/2018 as against cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- trial Magistrate ordered fine amount Rs.6,05,000/- of which sum of Rs.6,00,000/was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State.

¶26

The order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in the appeal filed by the accused in Crl.A.No.05/2023 by considered judgment dated 9.10.2023.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6449 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2024

¶28

Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

¶29

before this Court in this revision petition.

¶30

Smt.Nirmala B.G, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated material on record and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶31

Per contra , Sri.N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel

¶32

for the respondent supports the impugned orders.

¶33

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court noticed that the conditions imposed by this Court at the time of passing the interim order of suspension of sentence is not complied by the revision petitioner.

¶34

Further, cheque marked at Ex.P1 belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of accused. Legal notice though served, remained non-complied and there is no reply to the legal notice.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6449 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2024

¶36

Admittedly, cheque came to be dishonored for

¶37

want of funds. These basic factors were sufficient enough to raise the presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act.

¶38

No doubt the said presumption is a rebutable presumption. But accused in order to rebut the same did not place any evidence either oral or documentary in nature.

¶39

Left with no alternative, learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused and imposed fine as referred to supra which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court.

¶40

This Court having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisited to the factual aspects of the matter though strenuously argued by Smt.Nirmala B.G. Therefore, order of conviction needs no interference.

¶41

Further, imposition of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State cannot be countenance in

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6449 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2024

¶43

law in view of the fact that lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved as such, same needs no interference.

¶44

In view of the forgoing discussions, the following order is passed.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The criminal revision petition is allowed in part .

¶47

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act., fine amount Rs.6,05,000/is reduced to sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.

¶48

iii. Entire sum of Rs.6,00,000/- is order to be paid as compensation to the complainant. iv. Time is extended till 15.05.2025 to pay the balance fine amount.

¶49