[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajendra S/O Shanktappa Kokatnur vs Sri Anant S/O Shripatrao Kulkarni on 31 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282
CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100093 OF 2024
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJENDRA S/O SHANKTAPPA KOKATNUR
AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SERVANT,
R/O. FLAT NO 204, 2ND FLOOR,
MAHALAXMI ELEGANCE APARTMENT,
RAJEEVNAGAR, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DIST DHARWAD 580021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ANANT S/O SHRIPATRAO KULKARNI,
AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SERVANT,
R/O FLAT NO 301, 3RD FLOOR,
ROTSON SAI PRIDE FLORA APARTMENT,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST DHARWAD 580021.
...RESPONDENT
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
(BY SRI. MANIKANTHA HALLUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETAN T.
LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
Digitally signed by 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
Date: 2026.02.02
17:04:29 +0530
SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRL. APPEAL
NO.5108/2023 DATED 08.02.2024 MODIFYING THE ORDER OF
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE 1ST JMFC, HUBBALLI IN C.C.
NO.3391/2021 DATED 29.09.2023, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
NI ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282
CRL.RP No. 100093 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri.Sachinand M. Patil, appearing for revision
petitioner and Sri.Manikantha Hallur on behalf of Sri.Chetan
Limbikai, appearing for respondent.
2. The accused in C.C.No.3391/2018 is the revision
petitioner, having suffered an order of conviction for the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act1 and
directed to pay sum ₹31,02,900/- as fine. The said conviction
and sentence came to be confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5108
of 2023.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost, necessary for
disposal of the present petition are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The complainant
contended that he intended to purchase a house or a site, and at
that juncture, accused was introduced to him by Sri.Hanuman
Kulkarni of Hubballi, who was engaged in real estate business.
After sufficient negotiation, the accused represented that he had
Hereinafter referred to as (the N.I.Act,)
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282
HC-KAR
obtained a house from the Karnataka Housing Board and
collected sum of ₹15,46,450/- and wanted to sell the same.
However, the sale transaction did not materialise and therefore,
the complainant demanded the refund of the said amount.
4. At that juncture, the accused issued a cheque
bearing No.204688 dated 24.12.2020 for a sum
of ₹15,46,450/-, drawn on AXIS Bank, Dharwad Branch. On
presentation, the said cheque was dishonored with the
endorsement 'account blocked a situation covered in 2125'.
5. Legal Notice was caused by the complainant to the
accused, which was duly served. However, there was neither
reply nor compliance. Thereafter, the complainant filed the
present complaint seeking appropriate action.
6. After due trial, learned trial Judge convicted the
accused and imposed fine of ₹31,02,900/-.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred
an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.5108 of
2023.
8. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after
securing the records noted that no proper reasons are assigned
for imposing double the cheque amount as the fine amount and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282
HC-KAR
modified the sentence by directing the fine amount to be paid in
a sum of ₹19,00,000/- of which sum of ₹18,90,000/- was
ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and sum
of ₹10,000/- towards the defraying expense of the State.
9. The complainant has not filed any revision petition
seeking enhancement of fine amount or challenging the
modification. It is only the accused, who has preferred the
present revision.
10. Sri.S.M.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterating the grounds of the petition, vehemently contented
that both the Courts have not properly taken note of the
probative value of Exhibit D-1, which is a statement said to have
been given by the PW-1 before the police, when the accused has
filed a criminal complaint against the accused.
11. Therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt to
the tune of ₹15,00,000/-, as PW-1 had specifically admitted in
Exhibit D-1 that the accused was due only a sum of
₹12,06,100/-. Therefore, the very basis of the complaint itself is
incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supports
the impugned order.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282
HC-KAR
13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly
there is no defence evidence placed on record. The probative
value of Exhibit D-1 has been taken note of by both the Courts.
The exact amount due ought to have been established by the
accused by stepping into witness box. However, he chose not to
do so. What prevented him from leading the defence evidence
remains unexplained.
15. Taking note of the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association and Ors. vs.
Union of India and Ors.2, when once a cheque belonging to
the accused is dishonored and the signature therein is not
disputed, the complainant is entitled to the presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I.Act.
16. No doubt, such presumption rebuttable. However, in
the present case, except for making few suggestions in the
cross-examination of PW-1 and producing Exhibit D1, no other
material has been placed on record to rebut the said
presumption.
(2014) 5 SCC 590
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282
HC-KAR
17. Admittedly, the complaint said to have been recorded
by the concerned police, wherein the complainant was examined,
has not been placed on record. Likewise, the author of Exhibit
D-1 has not been examined by the accused.
18. Taking note of these aspects, the learned Judge of
the First Appellate Court observed that there was no proper basis
for imposing double the cheque amount as fine and accordingly
modified the sentence.
19. The accused did not choose to place any additional
material evidence on record before the First Appellate Court. As
such, this Court is of the concerned opinion that the statutory
presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of
the N.I.Act, has not been properly rebutted and Exhibit D-1, by
itself is not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available
to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act.
20. However, the imposition of a sum of ₹10,000/-
towards defraying the expenses of the State cannot be
countenanced in law, in view of the fact that the lis is purely
between private parties and there is no State machinery is
involved.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282
HC-KAR
21. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed-in-part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, the fine amount
awarded by the trial Magistrate and modified by
the First Appellate Court in a sum of
₹19,00,000/- is further modified into a sum of
₹18,90,000/-.
(iii) The entire sum of ₹18,90,000/- is ordered to be
paid as compensation to the complainant.
(iv) The balance sum of ₹10,000/- imposed towards
defraying the expense of the State is hereby
set-aside.
(v) Time is granted till 28.02.2026 for the revision
petitioner to pay the balance amount.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1282
HC-KAR
(vi) The office is directed to return the trial Court
records along with a copy of this order for
issuance of the modified conviction warrant.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
RHR/- CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8
