Karnataka High Court
M/S Kastakar Krishi Seva Kendra vs Savio Bio Organic And Fertilizer ... on 18 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2471
CRL.RP No. 100425 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100425 OF 2023
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
M/S KASTAKAR KRISHI SEVA KENDRA
BY ITS PRO. JITENDRA BOHARE
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. AMAGOAN, TQ.DIST. GONDIYA
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAVIO BIO ORGANIC AND FERTILIZER PRIVATE LTD.,
HAVNG OFFICE AT 5, AMAR EMPIRE, GOAVES, BELAGAVI,
R/BY ITS AUTHORISED MARKETING CO-COORDINATOR
PRASHANT SADASHIV KALGHAN
CHANDRASHEKAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI R/O. RAGHUNATH PETH, ANAGOL,
BELAGAVI,DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. SAJID GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED U/S 397(1) & 401 OF
Date: 2026.02.20 CR.PC., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
16:00:23 +0530
01.08.2023 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 133/2023 AND JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 11.4.2023 PASSED BY JMFC -V BELAGAVI IN CC
NO. 1701/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT
BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2471
CRL.RP No. 100425 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri. Vishwanath Badiger, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. Sajid Goodwala appearing on behalf of Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned counsel the respondent.
2. The accused is the revision petitioner who has suffered an order of conviction dated 11.04.2023 passed in C.C.No.1701/2019 by the learned JMFC-V, Belagavi1, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.133/2023 by the XI Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi2, vide its judgment dated 01.08.2023.
3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
4. A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging 1 For short, 'the Trial Court' 2 For short, 'the First Appellate Court' -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2471 CRL.RP No. 100425 of 2023 HC-KAR the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 if the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18813.
5. Complaint averments would reveal that the complainant was doing the business of fertilizers and chemicals under the name and style of 'Savio Bio Organic and Fertilizer Private Ltd.'.
6. Accused is running a business in the name and style 'M/s. Kastakar Krishi Seva Kendra' and used to purchase fertilizer and chemicals on credit basis.
7. Towards the repayment of the price of fertilizers and chemicals purchased by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.551121 drawn on State Bank of India, Amagaon Branch, in a sum of Rs.1,64,374/-, which represented the amount of goods and the interest.
8. The said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'Exceeds Arrangement' and there was no compliance to the callings of statutory notice. As such, complainant sought for action. 3 For short, 'N.I. Act' -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2471 CRL.RP No. 100425 of 2023 HC-KAR
9. The learned Trial Magistrate after taking note of the principles of law enunciated in Indian Bank Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Another4, completed the necessary formalities, recorded the evidence of the complainant and relied on the documentary evidence which were placed on record marked at Ex.P.1 to P.22, noted that there was no rebuttal evidence nor an application under Section 145 of the N.I. Act came to be filed, convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2,05,000/-. Out of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.133/2023.
11. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the 4 AIR 2014 SC 2528 -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2471 CRL.RP No. 100425 of 2023 HC-KAR parties and dismissed the appeal by impugned judgment dated 01.01.2023. Thereafter, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contend that there is a part payment made and without taking into consideration, conviction of the accused has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.
13. He would further contend that Articles of Association of the respondent's company has been marked as Ex.D.1 and probative value of the same has taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate and the learned Judge in the First Appellant Court, mechanically upheld the orders passed by the learned Trial Magistrate resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent support the impugned orders.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2471 CRL.RP No. 100425 of 2023 HC-KAR
15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that, admittedly, the cheque marked at Ex.P.1 and signature found therein is that of the accused.
17. Statutory notice issued to the complainant duly though served on the complainant, there were no compliance nor reply.
18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and other material documents namely statement of account of the accused with the complainant, dealership application and agreement, confirmation of accounts, the complainant has discharged his initial burden in proving the offence and for raising the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
19. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. But, to rebut the said presumption available to the complainant, there is no defense evidence except marking Ex.D.1 which did not advance the case of the accused to any extent. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2471 CRL.RP No. 100425 of 2023 HC-KAR
20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, conviction order cannot be interfered with that too in the Revisional Jurisdiction.
21. Having said so, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is imposed towards the defraying expenses of the State which is impermissible having regard to the fact that lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved.
22. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, fine amount of Rs.2,05,000/- is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-.
(iii) The entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is payable as compensation to the complainant.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2471 CRL.RP No. 100425 of 2023 HC-KAR
(iv) Imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside.
(v) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification.
(vi) Balance amount to be paid on or before 10.03.2026, failing which, the accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by learned Trial Magistrate.
(vii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with the copy of the order for issuance of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM / CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10