IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 508 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

C P DIWAKAR, S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT ANJANEYA KRUPA, DEVAMMA EXTENTION, CHANNAPATNA, HASSSAN - 573 201.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAJWAL B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SANNEGOWDA S/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT AGILE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN - 573 201.

GEETHAKUMARI …RESPONDENT PARLATTAYA S Location: High (BY SRI PAVAN G.N., ADVOCATE)

Court of THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 Karnataka R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 31.05.2022, PASSED BY THE V ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HASSAN IN C.C.NO.5488/2016 (ANNEXURE-B), B. SET AIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025, PASSED BY THE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.106/2022 (ANNEXURE-A).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment and order dated 10.02.2025 passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in Crl.A.no.106/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2022 passed by V Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan, in C.C.no.5488/2016, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Prajwal B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vamshi Krishna C., advocate for petitioner submitted revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was submitted on an allegation that complainant and accused were partners in "Pavan Putra Resorts" Partnership Firm, wherein they had invested Rs.4,02,26,250/- as capital and due to subsequent differences in partners had led to filing O.S.no.169/2015 by complainant against accused and his brothers for rendition of accounts.

3. Said suit ended in compromise on 23.09.2014, whereunder accused had agreed to pay amount invested by complainant in two installments with interest at rate of 14% per annum and issued cheque bearing no.370591 dated

10.06.2016 for Rs.40,22,625/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Hassan, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement payment stopped by drawer on 18.07.2016 and even when complainant got issued demand notice to accused on 08.08.2016, which was duly served, accused failed to reply or comply with demand, giving rise to cause of action for filing private complaint.

4. It was submitted on service of summons, accused appeared and denied allegations and sought to be tried. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. It was submitted, accused had substantiated his defence in cross-examination and as such on appraisal of incriminating material, denied same which was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short).

5. It was submitted, trial Court failed to consider facts and circumstances in proper perspective and directed accused to pay twice cheque amount of Rs.80,55,250/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for period of six months. Aggrieved, accused filed Criminal Appeal no.106/2022. In appeal, a specific contention was urged that trial Court was not justified in directing accused to pay double cheque amount especially when in respect of other cheques issued by accused to complainant, there was direction to pay cheque amount. On said grounds sought for allowing revision petition.

6. On other hand, Sri Pavan G.N., learned counsel for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, main grounds urged in revision petition was against imposition of fine i.e. amount double that off cheque amount. It was submitted, provisions of NI Act clearly provided for