Ramakant S/O Sadashiv Shet Vs Shri Manjunath S/O Pandurang Revankar

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO KINDLY ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND KINDLY CALL FOR RECORDS AND KINDLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37/2013, DATED 05.09.2022 BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO. 1130/2007, DATED 18/01/2013, BY THE LEARNED JMFC (II COURT) KARWAR, AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N I ACT.

¶18

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

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4434 CRL.RP No. 100382 of 2022

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

Sri.A.M.Gundawade submits that he has been appointed as Amicus Curie to address the arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner who is an accused and convicted in CC No.1130/2007 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, confirmed in

¶24

Crl.A.No.37/2013.

¶25

On behalf of the respondent Sri.Kiran Chattimath, advocate for Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni for respondent No.1 is present.

¶26

Heard the arguments of learned Amicus curie and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

Accused suffered an order of conviction under Section 138 of NI Act did not place any documentary evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Self serving testimony of the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. Cheque admittedly belongs to the accused

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4434 CRL.RP No. 100382 of 2022

¶29

and signature found therein is that of the accused which came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.

¶30

In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, learned trial Magistarate was justified in ordering conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act so also learned judge in the First Appellate Court was justified in upholding the same.

¶31

Learned trial judge however granted simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence and ordered sum of Rs.1,15,000/- as a payment of compensation to the complainant.

¶32

Ordering the simple imprisonment and imposing the fine of Rs.5,000/- needs interference in this revision petition and only in event of non-payment of compensation amount, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as default sentence

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4434 CRL.RP No. 100382 of 2022

¶35

would meets the ends of justice in the facts and

¶36

circumstances of the case.

¶37

8. Accordingly, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.

¶40

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate is modified as under: Accused is directed to pay fine amount of Rs.1,15,000/- which shall be paid as compensation to the complainant and failure to make the payment of fine amount on or before 30.03.2025, accused-revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶41

(iii) The service rendered by the amicus curie is placed on record with appreciation.

¶42

(iv) Ordered accordingly.

SD/-

(V.SRISHANANDA)

JUDGE

HMB