Karnataka High Court

R. Manjunath vs Satyeppa on 20 June, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286
                                                   CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019


                   HC-KAR




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200044 OF 2019
                                (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   R. MANJUNATH S/O R. HULAGAPPA,
                   AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINES,
                   R/O. NEAR GALEMMA TEMPLE, GANGAMATH SAMAJ,
                   DAM ROAD, KABBER STREET, HOSPETH,
                   TQ. HOSPETH, DIST. BALLARI-583201.
                                                           ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   SATYEPPA S/O YAMANAPPA HOSAMANI,
                   AGE:69 YEARS, OCC: RETD. KAS OFFICER,
Digitally signed   R/O. LAXMI NIVAS GYANG BAWADI,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH     NEAR BANDHI SCHOOL, VIJAYAPUR-586103
COURT OF                                                      ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)

                        THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W S.401
                   OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                   OF CONVICTION DATED 01.04.2019 PASSED BY THE
                   PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR, IN CRL.APPEAL
                   NO.12/2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE
                   PETITIONER AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
                   ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 02.02.2018 PASSED BY THE V
                   ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-IV COURT VIJAYAPURA IN
                   C.C.NO.2487/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE
                   OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.138 OF N.I.ACT.
                                -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286
                                     CRL.RP No. 200044 of 2019


HC-KAR



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

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                         ORAL ORDER

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

Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction dated

02.02.2018 in C.C.No.2487/2015 on the file of the V Addl. Civil

Judge and JMFC-IV, Vijayapura, for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein,

as against cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- accused was

directed to pay Rs.7,26,000/- as fine, of which Rs.7,20,000/-

was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant

and balance sum of Rs.6,000/- was ordered to be paid towards

defraying expenses of the State, confirmed in CrlA.No.12/2018

dated 01.04.2019 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge,

Vijayapura, is the Revision Petitioner.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286

HC-KAR

3. Facts in a nutshell which are necessary for disposal of the

present revision petition are as under:

A private complaint came to be lodged under Section 200

of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that petitioner has

committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, inasmuch as he had borrowed

Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant for purchase of rice in

bulk. Towards repayment of the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/-,

cheque came to be issued which on presentation came to be

dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'.

4. Legal notice came to be issued demanding payment of

the amount covered under the cheque. Same is served on

26.07.2014. When there was no compliance to the callings of

the notice despite service, complainant had approached the

jurisdictional Magistrate seeking necessary action.

5. On completion of necessary formalities and after due trial,

accused came to be convicted and sentenced as referred to

supra.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286

HC-KAR

6. Learned Trial Magistrate took into consideration the

presumption available to the complainant which is not rebutted

by the accused by placing cogent and convincing evidence on

record and therefore, convicted the accused.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal

before the District Court in Crl.A.No.12/2018.

8. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after

securing the records, heard the arguments of both sides and

dismissed the appeal on merits.

9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before

this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the

grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that the

oral testimony of accused who is examined as D.W.1 has not

been properly considered by the learned Trial Magistrate which

was sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the

complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286

HC-KAR

11. Therefore, sought for allowing the petition and dismissal

of the criminal complaint.

12. He also contended that legally recoverable debt is not

proved by the complainant by placing necessary material

evidence on record. Therefore the impugned judgments are

liable to be set-aside.

13. Per contra, Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the

respondent supports the impugned judgment contending that

there is a suggestion to P.W.1-complainant that the cheque

was given as security. Therefore, issuance of cheque and

signature found therein are that of the accused, is not in

dispute.

14. He would further contend that it is now settled principles

of law that even cheque which is issued towards security,

covers the legally recoverable debt and therefore, the

contention urged on behalf of the accused is rightly rejected by

the learned Trial Magistrate and sought for dismissal of the

petition.

15. Having heard both sides, this Court perused the material

on record, meticulously.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286

HC-KAR

16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is found that

Ex.P.1 cheque is belonging to accused who is a business man

and knows the consequences of parting away of signed blank

cheque.

17. According to the complainant, accused approached him

for hand loan in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for purchase of rice in

bulk quantity to be sold in public market. Believing the words

of the accused, complainant lent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and

towards repayment, cheque came to be issued by the accused.

18. Learned Trial Magistrate, taking note of the principles of

law enunciated in various judgments with regard to

presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, noted that the suggestion

made to P.W.1 that cheque was issued towards security is not

probablized by the accused by placing any documentary

evidence on record.

19. It is also pertinent to note that the oral testimony of the

accused is nothing but self serving testimony without there

being any plausible proof thereof, which is not sufficient enough

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286

HC-KAR

to dislodge the presumption available to the complainant under

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

20. Insofar as lending capacity is concerned, complainant

being a KAS Officer and in view of the principles of law

enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh

Jain vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023)10 SCC 148 cheque

marked at Ex.P.1 which is dishonoured for want of sufficient

funds did carry presumption as to legally recoverable debt.

Therefore, Order of conviction needs no interference.

21. Having said thus, as against cheque amount of

Rs.6,00,000/-, sum of Rs.7,26,000/- is ordered by the learned

Trial Magistrate. Transaction is of the year 2014 and the

conviction order came to be passed in February 2018.

Therefore, imposition of compensation amount is justifiable.

22. But sum of Rs.6,000/- ordered to be paid as fine towards

defraying expenses of the State needs interference by this

Court in this revision petition, inasmuch as, the lis is privy to

the parties and no State machinery is involved.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3286

HC-KAR

23. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the

following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining conviction of the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, fine of Rs.7,26,000/-

ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate and

confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate

Court is reduced to Rs.7,20,000/-.

(iii) Entire sum of Rs.7,20,000/- is ordered to be

paid as compensation to the complainant. Time is

granted till 20th July 2025 to pay the balance

amount. Failure to pay the balance fine amount,

accused shall undergo imprisonment ordered by the

learned Trial Magistrate.

(iv) Rs.6,000/- ordered by the learned Trial

Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the

First Appellate Court towards defraying expenses of