IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100032 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SIDDALINGESH S/O MAHADEVAPPA HANCHINAL AGE 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O BEHIND VIJAY NAGAR, HIGH SCHOOL, GADAG 582101, TQ AND DIST. GADAG.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVYA C. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

ASHIF @ ASIF S/O REHMANSAB @ RAHEMANSAB HONNAWAD @ HONWAD AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O H.NO.96, MIG 1 HUDCO COLONY, GADAG 582101, TQ AND DIST. GADAG …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by V N BADIGER (BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W Date: 2026.03.02

13:02:17 +0530 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, GADAG IN CRL.PPEAL NO. 24/2010 DATED 18.11.2022 AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GADAG IN C.C.NO. 516/2017 DATED 27.08.2020 AND THEREBY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION BY ACQUITTING THIS PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENSE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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 Ms.Kavya C.Shettar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Subhash J.Baddi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.516/2017 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.24/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

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 Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a dishonoured cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant.

4. It is the case of the accused that he stood as guarantor and there was no transaction at all between the original borrower and the complainant. Therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt and the cheque has been misused by the complainant.

5. Learned Trial Judge, after completing the necessary formalities, convicted the accused and sentenced as under:

“Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/S 138 of N.I.Act and accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,00,000/-

(seven lakhs only).

In case of default thereof accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for 5 (five) months.

Acting u/Sec.357 of Cr.PC it is hereby ordered that the accused shall pay compensation of Rs.6,75,000/- to the complainant out of fine amount and remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.

Accused is directed to pay the fine amount including compensation within 15 days from the date of order.”

6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.24/2020.

7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by holding in paragraphs 28 to 44, as under:

28. On bare perusal of the object of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it shows that the main object of the Chapter introducing dishonour of cheques on account of insufficiency of funds as penal offence in the Act is to enhance the acceptability of cheques. In order to attract the ingredients of Sec. 138 of NI Act, the complainant needs to prove that the cheque drawn by a drawer of the Cheque on an account maintained by him issued to the payee in discharge of any debt or other liability, cheque is presented to Bank within three months of the date of heque and returned by the drawer bank as unpaid, complainant has made a demand for th