Kumari Shobha G vs Shri Veeranagouda S/O ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1633 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1633 Kant
Judgement Date : 21 February, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Kumari Shobha G vs Shri Veeranagouda S/O ... on 21 February, 2026

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                   -1-
                                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:2791
                                                         CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2024


                      HC-KAR



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                         DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                            BEFORE

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100303 OF 2024
                                   (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                      BETWEEN:

                      KUMARI SHOBHA G.
                      D/O. GANAPATI GOUDA,
                      AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
                      R/O. GADIHALLI- BANAVASI, TALUKA. SIRSI,
                      DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581318.
                                                                         ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      SHRI VEERANAGOUDA S/O MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA PATIL
                      AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                      R/O. BALEHALLI, TALUK HANGAL,
                      DIST. HAVERI-581104.
CHANDRASHEKAR
                                                                     ...RESPONDENT
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI             (BY SRI. ABHISHEK G. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. I.K. KABBUR,
                      ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
                            THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI             401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
Date: 2026.02.24
11:36:24 +0530        AND ORDER DATED 01.07.2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.
                      75/2024 BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-
                      I, HAVERI AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
                      SENTENCE DATED 08.04.2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE No. 79/
                      2023 (P.C.NO. 20/2023) BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
                      AND JMFC, HANGAL, WHEREIN THE REVISION PETITIONER IS
                      CONVICTED AND SENTENCED UNDER 138 OF NI ACT, 1881, BY
                      ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, WITH COSTS AND
                      CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE SAID CRIMINAL CASE No.79/2023,
                      IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:2791
                                       CRL.RP No. 100303 of 2024


HC-KAR



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


                         ORAL ORDER

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

Heard Sri Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri Abhishek G. Hosakeri, advocate for Sri

Iranagouda K.Kabbur, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of

conviction in C.C.No.79/2023 dated 08.04.2024 on the file of the

Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

confirmed in Crl.A.No.75/2024 dated 01.07.2024 by the

Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri.

3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of an offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

by contending that the accused is acquainted with the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2791

HC-KAR

complainant and in the said acquaintance, he has borrowed hand

loan in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and towards repayment of same,

he had issued a cheque bearing No.000003 dated 21.09.2022

drawn on Laxmi Vilas Bank, Sirsi Branch, which on presentation

came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient.'

4. There was no compliance to the callings of the statutory

notice and therefore, complainant has sought for action.

5. Learned Trial Judge after completing the necessary

formalities, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of

India and others reported in (2014)5 SCC 590 convicted the

accused and sentenced him to pay fine in a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-

of which Rs.2,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation

to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards

defraying expenses of the State.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed

before the First Appellate Court.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2791

HC-KAR

7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing

the records, heard the arguments of the parties on merits and

dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated 01.07.2024.

8. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is

before this Court in the present Revision Petition.

9. Sri Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,

vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly

appreciated the material evidence on record and ignored the oral

testimony of the accused who has been examined as D.W.1 and

wrongly convicted the accused. Therefore, sought for allowing

the revision petition.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the

impugned judgment.

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

on record, meticulously.

12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear

that the cheque in question belongs to the accused and signature

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2791

HC-KAR

found therein is that of the accused. There is no compliance to

the callings of statutory notice.

13. Initial burden has been discharged by the complainant as

presumption is available under Section 139 of the N.I.Act.

14. In order to rebut the presumption, except the oral

testimony of the accused, there is no other material placed on

record.

15. Under such circumstances, learned Trial Judge was justified

in convicting the accused and learned Judge in the First Appellate

Court has rightly re-appreciated the same and dismissed the

appeal.

16. Taking note of the above, the order of conviction and

sentence cannot be interfered with, that too, in revisional

jurisdiction.

17. Having said so, imposition of Rs.10,000/- towards

defraying expenses of the State would not arise, as the lis is

privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved.

18. Accordingly, the following:

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2791

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. Revision Petition is allowed in part.

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the

revision petitioner for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, fine amount of Rs.2,10,000/-

is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-.

iii. Entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to

be paid as compensation to the complainant

under due identification.

iv. Sum of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Trial

Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court

towards defraying expenses of the State is

hereby set aside.

v. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be

withdrawn by the complainant under due

identification.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2791

HC-KAR

vi. Balance amount to be paid by the revision

petitioner on or before 16th March, 2026.

Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records

along with the copy of this order forthwith, for issue of

modified conviction warrant.