[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sadhana Nishabt Lohar vs Markandeya Co-Operative Credit ... on 5 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:26
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100147 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SMT. SADHANA NISHABT LOHAR
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
R/O H.NO. 259/C, GANAPAT GALLI,
AMBEWADI, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MARKANDEYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,
MANNUR, TALUKA BELAGAVI
R/BY ITS RECOVERY OFFICER,
SHRI SURAJ PIRAJI PATIL
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
AYUB
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
DESHNUR
Location: High R/O. MANNUR, TQ BELAGAVI-590013.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY
TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE
REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.428/2019 DATED ON 09.03.2022 PASSED BY
THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM,
CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CC NO.384/2018
DATED 10.10.2019 PASSED BY THE VII-JMFC BELAGAVI, AND ALLOW
THE REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:26
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri.Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel for
the revision petitioner and Sri.Abhishek Barigidad, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.T.Bangi, learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. Accused is the revision petitioner challenging the
order of conviction passed under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.384/2018 dated
10.10.2019 on the file of VII JMFC, Belagavi which was
confirmed in Crl.A.No.428/2019 dated 09.03.2022 on the
file of XI Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. Respondent/complainant filed a petition under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of the offence
NC: 2026:KHC-D:26
HC-KAR
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
against the petitioner herein by contending that accused
and her husband - Nishant Lohar being the members of the
complainant society, approached the complainant and after
furnishing necessary documents and sureties, availed
mortgage loan in a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-.
3.2. Complainant sanctioned the loan and the loan
account became irregular and towards repayment of the
said loan amount, a cheque bearing No.043301 dated
09.06.2017 in a sum of Rs.12,19,297/- drawn on Federal
Bank Limited, Belagavi Branch was issued.
3.3. Said cheque on presentation, came to be
dishonored and there was no compliance to the callings of
notice and therefore, sought for action against the
petitioner.
4. Learned Trial Judge after completing necessary
formalities, noted that the cheque belonged to the
petitioner and signature found in the cheque was not in
NC: 2026:KHC-D:26
HC-KAR
dispute and drew the presumption available to the
complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act by following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Shri.Mohan reported in
AIR 2010 SC 1898 and convicted the accused.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.428/2019, which
on contest, came to be dismissed.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court, in this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition,
vehemently contented that even in the absence of any
rebuttal evidence that is placed on record, since the initial
burden is not discharged by the complainant, the conviction
order needs to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
supports the impugned orders.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:26
HC-KAR
9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that Ex.P.1 - cheque belongs to the accused
and same is dishonored and there is no compliance to the
callings of the notice vide Ex.P.3. Loan application is
marked at Ex.P.7 wherein the signature of the accused is
found. Loan agreement marked at Ex.P.8 and surety bond
would make it clear that there was a sanction of mortgage
loan and towards repayment of the said loan; Ex.P.1 -
cheque came to be issued, which on presentation having
been dishonored, complainant has discharged necessary
initial burden to draw the presumption under Section 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.
11. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed
on record by the accused, conviction of the accused for the
aforesaid offence is just and proper.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:26
HC-KAR
12. Learned Trial Judge and learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court have thus rightly appreciated the
material evidence on record while passing the impugned
orders.
13. Grounds of the revision are not sufficient enough
to annul the well reasoned impugned judgments.
Accordingly, following:
ORDER
i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby
dismissed.
ii. However, time is granted till 20.06.2026 to
pay the balance amount.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
Ct-cmu
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
