Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Touseef vs Guru Mathew on 4 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217
CRL.RP No. 100102 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100102 OF 2016
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED TOUSEEF
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HOTHUR ARCADE RTO ROAD,
CONTONMENT, BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GURU MATHEW
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. PROPRIETOR OF GURU TRANSPORT,
R/O. C/O. M. VISHWESHAWARAIH LORRY TERMINAL,
STALL NO.20, AND 21, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Location: HIGH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SECTION 397(1) OF R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE
REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
01/04/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELLARI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25/2015 AND THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI
IN C.C.NO.1340/2012 DATED 10/08/2015 FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217
CRL.RP No. 100102 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri M.L. Vanti, learned counsel for revision
petitioner and Sri V. Shivaraj Hireamth, learned counsel
for respondent.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act confirmed in Crl.A.No.2527/2015 is the
revision petitioner.
3. In the case on hand, issuance of cheque,
signature found therein and issuance of the legal notice
are all admitted. In fact, after the receipt of the legal
notice, accused/revision petitioner has made payment of
Rs.10,00,000/- which has been taken note of and given
due deduction in the impugned judgment.
4. Taking note of the same and also taking note of
the fact that there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record
by the accused, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217
accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act after due trial and imposed the
fine of Rs.15,00,000/- as against the balance amount of
Rs.12,62,226/-.
5. Apart from ordering Rs.15,00,000/- as
compensation to the complainant, Rs.10,000/- was
ordered to be paid as compensation as defraying expenses
of the State. Accused and complainant both filed appeals
against the order passed by the learned trial magistrate.
Both the appeals on contest came to be dismissed.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused alone
has preferred the present revision petition.
7. Sri M.L. Vanti, learned counsel for revision
petitioner contended that both the Courts have not
properly appreciated the material evidence on record and
wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
imposed a fine of Rs.15,10,000/- has also resulted in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing of the
revision petition.
8. Per contra, Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned
counsel for respondent supports the impugned order.
9. He would contend that after the issuance of
notice, part payment has been made which has been given
due deduction by the learned trial judge himself in the
impugned order while passing the judgment and imposing
the fine amount of R.15,10,000/- which needs to be
maintained by dismissing the revision petition.
10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, since
the issuance of cheque, signature found therein is
admitted and part payment is also made after the issuance
of the legal notice, all ingredients to attract the for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
stands established especially in the absence of any
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217
defence evidence placed on record following the dictum of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank
Association and others vs. Union of India and others1
12. Now coming to the question of the fine amount
and the sentence is concerned, a sum of Rs.15,10,000/- is
ordered to be paid as fine amount. Out of which, a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to
the complainant. Taking note of the business transaction
that existed between the parties, reducing the fine amount
Rs.13,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
13. Further, imposition of Rs.10,000/- fine amount
imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate towards defraying
expenses of the State needs to be set aside taking note of
the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State
machinery is involved.
14. In view of the forgoing discussions, following :
(2014) 5 SCC 590
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4217
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining conviction of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, fine amount ordered by the learned
Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate
Court is reduced from Rs.15,10,000/- to
Rs.13,00,000/-.
(iii) Entire sum of Rs.13,00,000/- is to be paid or
deposited in the account of the petitioner as
compensation in three installments viz., from
30.03.2025, 30.04.2025 and 31.05.2025. Failing
which, the accused/revision petitioner shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
(iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by
the complainant under due identification.
(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records
along with copy of this order for issuance of modified
conviction order.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:PA
