Karnataka High Court
Dr. Dinesh S/O. Jagannath Narayankar vs Satish S/O. Chandrashekhar Satapati on 28 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100313 OF 2022
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
DR.DINESH S/O. JAGANNATH NARAYANKAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR,
DEPT. OF CRIMINOLOGY,
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD-580003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KOWDI R ISHWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SATISH S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR SATAPATI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. ANAND NAGAR ROAD, GANESH NAGAR,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580024.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally (BY SRI G.A. BHAT AND SRI AAYUSH G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
signed by V
N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.04.03
10:52:24
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W.
+0530
SEC. 401 OF CR.PC. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE
CASE IN C.C. NO. 3266/2015 ON THE FILE OF JMFC II HUBBALLI
AND THAT OF CRL. APPEAL NO. 5032/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI
AND TO EXAMINE THE LEGALITY, PROPERITY AND CORRECTNESS OF
THE PROCEEDINGS AND FINDINGS OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS
AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2222 IN CRL.A APPEAL
NO. 5032/2022 OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND ALSO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT DATED 07.03.2022 IN
C.C.NO. 3266/2015 ON THE FILE COURT OF JMFC II, HUBBALLI FOR
AN OFFENCE U/SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ORDER THE ACQUITTAL
OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
CRL.RP No. 100313 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri.Kowdi R. Ishwar, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent.
2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction
in CC No.3266/2015 dated 07.03.2022 which was
confirmed in Crl.A.No.5032/2022 dated 29.07.2022 for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under section
200 Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act by contending that accused and
complainant are well acquainted with each other and in
the month of July 2014, accused approached the
complainant and requested him to advance hand loan in a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, on 03.07.2014,
complainant advanced sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the
accused with a promise to repay the same. Towards
repayment, accused issued two cheques bearing
No.200228 dated 01.09.2014 in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
and another cheque bearing No.200229 dated 01.10.2014
in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Both the cheques on
presentation returned with an dishonored 'funds
insufficient'. Thereafter, legal notice came to be issued.
Though legal notice is issued, accused instead of
complying the callings of the legal notice, issued frivolous
reply. Therefore, complainant sought for action against
the accused.
4. After completing necessary formalities, learned
Trial Magistrate summoned the accused and recorded the
plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was
held.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant,
complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on
record 15 documents which were exhibited and marked as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
Ex.P.1 to 15 comprising of dishonored cheque, counterfoil
of cheque deposit slips, return memo, legal notice, portal
receipt, acknowledgement, reply notice issued by the
accused and letters endorsing dishonor.
6. In the cross-examination of the complainant, it
is elicited that on 13.07.2014, complainant has lent the
amount in cash to the accused. He also stated that there
is a mistake in the complaint averments that actually
amount was lent on 13.07.2014 and by mistake it has
been mentioned as 03.07.2014. Except such admission,
there is no other useful material elicited in the cross-
examination.
7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded
the accused statement as is contemplated under Section
313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused has denied the incriminatory
circumstances.
8. In order to rebut the presumption available to
the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1,
his sister as D.W.2 and Police Officer as D.W.3. Testimony
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
of D.W.1 and 2 are nothing but a self serving testimony
inasmuch as there was no corroboration for the same.
The accused tried to contend that he acted as a guarantor
voluntarily and therefore, there is no legally recoverable
debt. D.W.2 supported her brother by contending that
there was no transaction as is alleged by the complainant.
9. D.W.3 is the Police Officer who did not support
the case of the accused though summoned on behalf of
the accused. D.W.3 was not treated as a hostile witness
nor cross-examined by the accused.
10. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the
arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record, found that material evidence placed on record
was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption
available to the complainant under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted the accused and
sentenced him to pay fine amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, out of
which sum of Rs.2,30,000/- is ordered to be paid as
compensation to the complainant and balance sum of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
Rs.10,000/- to be paid towards defraying expenses of the
State.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
appeal before the First Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.5032/2022.
12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties
in detail and in the light of the appeal grounds and on
reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record,
dismissed the appeal of the accused by considered
judgment dated 29.07.2022.
13. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court, in this revision.
14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition
contended that both the Courts have failed to consider the
material contradictions in the case of the complainant and
wrongly convicted the revision petitioner resulting in
miscarriage of justice.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
15. He would point out that in the complaint itself,
there is an averment that complainant has lent sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- on 03.07.2014 whereas complainant
categorically admits in his cross-examination that actually
amount is lent on 13.07.2014, but there is a mistake in
writing the date in the complaint. But same has not been
considered by the learned Trial Magistrate or the learned
Judge in the First Appellate Court which is a material
contradiction going to the very root of the matter and
sought for allowing the revision petition.
16. He would further contend that amount said to
have been lent is in cash and there is no proper proof for
the same and lending capacity of the complainant has not
been established by the complainant. Therefore,
conviction of the revision petitioner is bad in law and
sought for allowing the revision petition.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent remained
absent.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
18. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material
on record meticulously.
19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that there is no dispute that both the cheques
marked at Exs.P.1 and 2 belonged to the revision
petitioner and signature found therein is that of the
revision petitioner is not in dispute. According to the
defence, said cheques were issued by the revision
petitioner in respect of another case as a guarantor.
20. To substantiate the same, revision petitioner
has examined his sister as D.W.2. On perusal of the oral
testimony of D.W.1 and 2, it is nothing but a self serving
testimony and there is no proper proof to place the same.
No further materials are found to substantiate the said
stand.
21. It is now settled principles of law and requires
no emphasis that even the cheque issued as a guarantor
or the security, when gets dishonored, would be a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
punishable offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
22. D.W.3 who is the Police Officer of Old Hubballi
Police Station who said to have been witnessing the fact
that cheques where issued by the revision petitioner to the
complainant in respect of settlement of a matter as a
guarantor, did not support the case of the revision
petitioner.
23. Accordingly, when there is a clear defence that
has been taken by the revision petitioner that the cheques
did not carry any legally recoverable debt and failed to
prove the same, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in
raising the presumption available to the complainant under
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
convicting the revision petitioner is just and proper which
has been rightly reappreciated by the learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
24. Having regard to the limited powers under the
revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit into the
factual aspects of the matter in upsetting the finding
recorded by both the Courts with cogent and convincing
reasons.
25. Accordingly, conviction of the revision petitioner
needs no interference.
26. However, it is noticed that out of the fine
amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to
be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State.
Same needs interference as the lis is privy to the parties
and no State machinery is involved.
27. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in
part.
ii. While maintaining the order of conviction for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5715
amount ordered by the learned Trial
Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate
Court in a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- is reduced
to sum of Rs.2,30,000/-.
iii. Entire sum of Rs.2,30,000/- is ordered to be
paid as compensation to the complainant
failing which the revision petitioner shall
undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by
the learned Trial Magistrate.
iv. Sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid towards
defraying expenses of the State is hereby
set aside.
v. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to
pay the amount till 30.04.2025.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records
with copy of this order forthwith.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
CT:PA
