IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100324 OF 2021 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. MALLIKSAB S/O. RAZAKASAB MOKASHI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HOSPETH GALLI, PATAN BUILDING, BEHIND ANAND TALKIES, GOKAKA, PINCODE-591307.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

RAJANI W/O. RAVINDRA KATTIMANI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MARATHA GALLI, GOKAK, PIN CODE-591124.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HANUMESH M. DESAI, AMICUS CURIAE)

VINAYAKA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION B V

397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND Digitally signed ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT by VINAYAKA B V PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.175/2020 DATED ON 27.09.2021 Date: 2026.04.16

10:36:38 +0530 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT PASSED BY THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAKA AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CC NO.237/2011 DATED 12.03.2020 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAKA AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the trial Court passed in CC No.237 of 2011 and also the confirmation order passed in Criminal Appeal No.175 of

2020.

2. The factual matrix of case of complainant/respondent before the trial Court is that the accused has issued cheques for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,20,000, Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- dated 7.7.2009 in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt and when the cheques were presented, the same were returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” and statutory notice was issued and no reply was given and also did not comply with the demand. The trial Court considering the evidence of PW1 and when the defence was taken, that cheque was stolen by the husband of the complainant and to that effect cross examination was made and the same is extracted in paragraph-15 of the judgment of the trial Court and those suggestions are denied, but did not choose to lead any defence evidence to rebut the evidence of the complainant under Section 139 of NI Act, convicted the accused. The appellate Court also having considered the grounds, which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point as to whether the order of conviction and sentence calls for interference and taking note of the demand notice was sent to the accused at the address and first such notice was returned with an endorsement ‘no such addressee at the Pathan Building’ and again the complainant has issued one more notice on 10.08.2009 and as per Ex.P13, it is served upon the accused and the fact that the address of the accused mentioned in Ex.P14 is correct and stands proved. Even otherwise in the cross examination of PW1, the said address of the accused is not disputed and no reply was given. Considering all these materials, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the conviction and confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

3. In the revision petition, the grounds which have been urged to before this Court are that both the Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the very ingredient of the said offence are not proved by the complainant and the finding of trial Court and appellate Court is erroneous and even referring the judgment of Rangappa vs. Mohan, 2010 (5) KCCR 4063 wherein also the Apex Court held that it is not necessary for the complainant to prove debt to the hit and for that, make Section 139 of NI Act in the said decision, and further held that presumption under Section