IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100132 OF 2021 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SMT. K. AMBUJA W/O. K. SATHYAPPA NAYAKA AGED 45 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SOKKE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

A. PATREVVA W/O. LATE MARULASIDDAPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HOUSEWHOLD, R/O. TOOLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT CHANDRASHEKAR LAXM AN (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

KATTIMANI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR DATED 01/03/2021 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.5007/2019 BY THE LAXMAN KATTIMANI 3RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT Date: 2026.02.13

15:47:44 +0530 HOSAPETE THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01/01/2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.962/2015 BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT KUDLIGI AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

ORAL ORDER

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

1. Heard Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.962/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the N.I. Act”), which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5007/2019.

3. The facts, in a nutshell, necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:

3.1. In respect of a dishonoured cheque issued by the accused, a criminal prosecution was initiated by the complainant by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C.”)

before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

3.2. It was contended that the accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and, towards repayment of the said amount, issued a cheque bearing No.636192 dated 25.02.2015 drawn on Pragathi Gramina Bank, Sokke Branch. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient.”

4. A statutory notice was issued, which was neither complied with nor replied to by the accused. Thereafter, the trial was conducted after completion of the necessary formalities, during which the complainant examined himself and two witnesses, namely Shivakumar V.G., and Bhaskar.

5. On behalf of the complainant, thirteen documents were produced and marked, which included the dishonoured cheque, bank endorsements, legal notice, portal acknowledgment, and RTC extracts.

6. On behalf of the accused, two witnesses were examined, namely the accused himself and H.Neelagiriyappa, and the personal account book was marked as Ex.D1.

7. After hearing the arguments of both sides and upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,05,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying the expenses of the State.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.5007/2019.

9. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, after securing the records and hearing the arguments of the parties in detail, dismissed the appeal, inter alia, holding in paragraphs 14 to 17 as under:

“14. One witness by name H.Neelagiriyappa is examined as DW-2 in his chief-examination he stated that he know the accused as she is the adjacent land owner. He know the son of complainant by name Manjunatha as