Karnataka High Court
Vikas Dattatraya Lagare vs Balaso Ramachandra Narote on 5 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8
CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2017
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. 100016 OF 2017
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
VIKAS DATTATRAYA LAGARE,
AGE 47 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. 5/255, NEAR OLD NAGAR,
PARISHAD BUILDING, ICHALKARANJI,
TQ. HATKANAGALE, DIST KOLHAPUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 BALASO RAMACHANDRA NAROTE,
Digitally signed
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
by SAMREEN
AYUB
DESHNUR
R/O: 25/656/2 KARANDE MALA
Location: High
Court of NEAR SHAHAPUR CREMATORIUM,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
ICHALKARANJI,
TQ: HATKANAGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
DIED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
1A) SUNITA W/O. BALASO NAROTE
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. 25/656/2, MARANDE MALA,
NEAR SHAHAPUR CREMATORIUM, ICHALKARANJI,
TQ. HATKANAGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
1B) SHRI PANKAJ S/O. BALASO NAROTE
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. PVT SERVICE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8
CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2017
HC-KAR
R/O. 25/656/2, MARANDE MALA,
NEAR SHAHAPUR CREMATORIUM, ICHALKARANJI,
TQ. HATKANAGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
1C) MISS PRIYANKA D/O. BALASO NAROTE
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. 25/656/2, MARANDE MALA,
NEAR SHAHAPUR CREMATORIUM, ICHALKARANJI,
TQ. HATKANAGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
1D) MISS POONAM D/O. BALASO NAROTE
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. 25/656/2, MARANDE MALA,
NEAR SHAHAPUR CREMATORIUM, ICHALKARANJI,
TQ. HATKANAGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUNIL KOT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI,
ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(D) ,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE VII ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT
CHIKKODI DATED 4.1.2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.50 OF
2015 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
ATHANI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 320 OF 2008 DATED 30.3.2015
AND TO ALLOW THE PREPSENT REVISION PETITION AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8
CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, for revision petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Sunil Khot for Sri.Ramachandra A. Mali, for respondents No.1(A to D).
2. The accused is the revision petitioner who has challenged the conviction of the revision petitioner in C.C.No.320 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act', for short), which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.50/2015.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
3.1 Accused and complainant are fast friends and in the year 2005, accused sought for financial assistance of ₹3,00,000/- as he was constructing a house. Complainant considering the request of the accused, paid a sum of ₹2,96,000/- as hand loan on 15.08.2005 in the presence of Ramachandra Ganapati Kolekar and Jnyandev Bhimarao -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:8 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2017 HC-KAR Narote. Towards repayment of the hand loan amount, a cheque bearing No.223999 dated 12.02.2008, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Ichalkaranji Branch, for a sum of ₹2,96,000/- came to be issued.
3.2 Said cheque on presentation got dishonoured with an endorsement of "insufficient funds". Thereafter, a legal notice came to be issued. There was no compliance with the notice, as the accused failed to receive the same.
Thereafter, the complaint came to be filed. 3.3 Learned Judge after completing necessary formalities, recorded the plea and recorded the evidence of the complainant and witness by name Jnyandev Bhimarao Narote. On behalf of the complainant, dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, RPAD returned cover and etc., were marked as Ex.P-1 to P-14.
4. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, there was no defence evidence placed on record to rebut the presumption available to the complainant.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2017 HC-KAR
5. Thereafter, learned Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by order dated 31.03.2015, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and was directed to pay a fine amount of ₹ 2,96,000/-, out of which a sum of ₹2,94,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed by the accused in Criminal Appeal No.50/2015. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.
7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.
8. Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and have wrongfully convicted the accused, and sought for admitting revision petition for further consideration. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2017 HC-KAR
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Sri.Sunil Khot, for Sri.Ramachandra Mali, would support the impugned orders.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that the cheque marked at Ex.P1 belongs to the accused and there is no dispute with regard to the signature of the accused found therein.
11. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain v/s Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148, it is to be held that once the cheque is issued and the signature therein is that of the accused, there would be a presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, in addition to the presumption under Section 118 of the N.I.Act.
12. No doubt, such a presumption is rebuttable. However, in the case on hand, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2017 HC-KAR
13. Even in the cross examination of PW-1 no useful material is elicited so as to rebut the presumption available to the complainant.
14. Under such circumstances, conviction of the accused is just and proper. However, since the cheque amount itself is ₹2,96,000/-, ordering compensation of ₹2,94,000/- and directing the balance amount of ₹2,000/- to be appropriated towards the State is incorrect. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the accused, entire amount of ₹2,96,000/- is ordered to be paid by the accused to the complainant, failing which he shall undergo the imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate.
15. The sum of ₹2,000/- imposed by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court towards the defraying expenses of the State is hereby set aside, as there is no State machinery involved in proving the offence against the accused.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8 CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2017 HC-KAR
16. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition dismissed.
(ii) Time is granted till 20.01.2026 to pay the balance fine amount.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32