Shri. Shridhar S/O Chandru Binage Vs Viijayakumar B Gaonkar

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31/10/2025 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.177/2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR, IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/07/2019 IN C.C. NO. 458/2018 (OLD NO. 01/2014) PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. ANKOLA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2203 CRL.RP No. 100462 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

Heard Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

Respondent served with the notice of the revision petition and remained absent.

¶28

Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction dated 12.07.2019 in C.C. No.458/2018 (old No.1/2014) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881¹ , and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expense of the State and Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.177/2019.

¶29

Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶30

1 For short, ‘N.I. Act’

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2203 CRL.RP No. 100462 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

In respect of a dishonored cheque, prosecution was launched by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶34

Complainant contended that the accused is his friend and obtained hand loan in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/and towards the repayment, issued a cheque bearing No.495879 dated 04.12.2012 in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/drawn on State Bank of Maharashtra, Karwar Branch, which on presentation came to be dishonored. Statutory notice was issued and there was neither compliance nor reply by the accused. Therefore, action was sought for.

¶35

Learned Trial Magistrate after securing the presence of the accused, convicted the accused, observing that the complainant had discharged the initial burden to raise the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. But there was no rebuttal evidence to dislodge the said presumption.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2203 CRL.RP No. 100462 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar² , in Criminal Appeal No.177/2019.

¶39

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by judgment dated 31.10.2025 dismissed the appeal.

¶40

Being further aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

¶41

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the cheque in question came to be issued towards the security. Therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt involved in the incident and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶42

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶43

2 For short, ‘the First Appellate Court’

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2203 CRL.RP No. 100462 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

On such perusal of material on record, it is

¶47

evidence that a cheque which is issued towards the security is also a legally recoverable debt as per the settled principles of law.

¶48

Therefore, defense raised on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, the order of conviction needs no interference.

¶49