Karnataka High Court
Shri. Santosh Kalagouda Patil vs Patson Multipurpose Souhad Sahakari ... on 24 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386
CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100016 OF 2024
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI SANTOSH KALAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. PVT. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO.541/472, PATIL GALLI,
TAL. KANBARGI, BELAGAVI. 590018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
PATSON MULTIPURPOSE SOUHAD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,
BELAGAVI, NO.26, A, WIND, II FLOOR,
MAHANTMA GANDHI BHAVAN,
COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI,
R/BY ITS C.E.O. SHRI. SHASHIKANT MARUTI KABBURI,
Digitally
signed by
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
VN
VN BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
R/O. MG BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI.590009.
2025.03.29
11:41:23
+0530
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SOURABH R. MIRJI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 (1)
R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 31.08.2023 IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 221/2022 BY THE LEARNED
VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI AND
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMFC-V
BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO. 719/2020 DATED 07.07.2022 FOR OFFENCE
U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT, 1881 AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ANY OTHER RELIEFS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386
CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for revision
petitioner and Sri Sourabh R. Mirje, representing on behalf
of Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, by
consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final
disposal.
3. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered
an order of conviction in C.C.No.719/2020 for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act') and ordered to pay fine of
Rs.7,25,000/- of which, a sum of Rs.7,23,000/- as
compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,000/-
towards defraying expenses of the State confirmed in
Crl.A.No.221/2022 has preferred this revision petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386
4. Accused issued a cheque towards the
repayment of the loan as a guarantor of the principal
borrower, which on presentation, came to be dishonoured.
5. After due trial, he has been convicted noting
the fact that he did not choose to place any defence
evidence on record. Further, records disclose that despite
granting sufficient opportunity, the accused failed to cross-
examine the complainant-Sri Shashikant M. Kabburi.
6. Left with no alternative, learned Trial Judge
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, raised the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.
Act and recorded an order of conviction, which was re-
appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate
Court while dismissing the appeal. Thereafter, the revision
petitioner is before this Court.
7. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for revision
petitioner contends that for the liability of the principal
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386
borrower, present accused-petitioner cannot be penalized
and sought for admitting the petition.
8. Sri Sourabh R. Mirje, representing on behalf of
Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for respondent
opposes the grounds of revision petition.
9. Having heard the arguments, this Court
perused the metal on record meticulously.
10. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs.
Union of India and others1, in the absence of any rebuttal
evidence placed on record learned Trial Magistrate
convicting the accused and leaned Judge in the First
Appellate Court confirming the same after re-appreciation
of the material on record requires no interference by this
Court in this revision having regard to the scope of the
revisional jurisdiction.
(2014) 5 SCC 590
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386
11. However, on noticing the sentence portion, a
sum Rs.2,000/- is ordered to be paid as defraying
expenses of the State which needs interference in view of
the fact that the lis is privy to the parties and no State
machinery involved. Accordingly, following order is
passed.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act, fine amount as
ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by
the First Appellate Court in a sum of
Rs.7,25,000/- is reduced to Rs.7,23,000/-.
(iii) Entire sum of Rs.7,23,000/- is order to be
paid as compensation to the complainant.
(iv) Time is granted to pay the balance amount of
compensation till 30th April, 2025, failing
which, accused shall undergo imprisonment
as ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed
by the First Appellate Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5386
(v) A sum of Rs.2,000/- ordered by the Trial
Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate
Court towards the defraying expenses of the
State, is set aside.
(vi) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
withdrawn by the complainant under due
identification.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:PA
