Karnataka High Court
A Girish Rao vs Nagaraj on 5 March, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13589
CRL.RP No. 101 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.101 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
A. GIRISH RAO,
SON OF ANANDA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR,
H.G.T, GINGER TRADERS,
SAVALANGA ROAD,
HARNAHALLI POST,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
PIN-577201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ S JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed NAGARAJ,
by
SHARADAVANI SON OF VEERAPPA,
B AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
Location: HIGH RESIDING AT VEERANANABENAVALLI POST,
COURT OF AYANURU HOBLI,
KARNATAKA
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
PIN-577 201.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 05.02.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN CC
NO.1568/2018 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.09.2020
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13589
CRL.RP No. 101 of 2021
HC-KAR
SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.54/2020 CONSEQUENTLY,
REVERSE THE FINDINGS AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM
THE ALLEGED CHARGES FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF N.I.
ACT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Nagaraj S. Jain.
None appears for the respondent though served with the notice of the revision petition.
2. Accused in C.C.No.1568 of 2018 who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.1,30,000/-, of which sum of Rs.1,29,000/- as compensation to the complainant and sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State, which was modified in Criminal Appeal No 54 of 2020 by directing the accused to pay interest at 12% on the cheque -3- NC: 2026:KHC:13589 CRL.RP No. 101 of 2021 HC-KAR amount from the date of order till realization, is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the complainant against the accused alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
3.2 The complaint averments reveal that in respect of the ginger crops sold by the complainant, accused issued the two cheques totaling to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, towards the value of ginger crop marked at Ex.P1, which on presentation came to be dishonored. There was no compliance to the callings of the statutory notice. Therefore, action was sought for.
3.3 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore, trial was held.
3.4 In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record -4- NC: 2026:KHC:13589 CRL.RP No. 101 of 2021 HC-KAR seven documents comprising of dishonored cheques, bank endorsements, copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, office copy of the notice. As against the said evidence, accused got himself examined as DW1 and contented that cheque in question was misused by the complainant, which was given as security.
3.5 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the recording of evidence, heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 05.02.2020, convicted the accused and imposed the fine of Rs.1,30,000/-, of which a sum of Rs.1,29,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation and balance sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State.
3.6 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2020. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 21.09.2020, dismissed the appeal.
3.7 However, modified the operative portion of the order of the learned Trial Magistrate and directed that 12% -5- NC: 2026:KHC:13589 CRL.RP No. 101 of 2021 HC-KAR interest is to be paid on the cheque amount from the date of order of appeal till the realization. The validity of those orders are called in question in this revision petition.
4. Sri.Nagaraj S.Jain, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that both the courts have not properly appreciated the fact that the cheques were given as security which has been misused by the complainant. Therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt covered under the cheques. As such, conviction of the accused is improper.
5. Alternatively, Sri.Nagaraj S.Jain, learned counsel would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, granting 12% interest by the First Appellate Court on the cheque amount needs to be set aside as the scheme of Section 138 of the Act does not provide for ordering interest on the cheque amount.
6. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:13589 CRL.RP No. 101 of 2021 HC-KAR
7. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques are belonging to the accused and signatures found therein is that of the accused. Complainant has specifically stated that he has sold the ginger crop to the accused and towards the value of the ginger crop, cheques in question marked at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are issued by the accused, which on presentation came to be dishonored.
8. Thus, the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant to prove that there existed a legally recoverable debt under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
9. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the presumption, accused has stepped into the witness box and led oral evidence. According to the accused, those cheques were issued as security, which has been misappropriated by the complainant.
10. If it is so, then the accused was required to take some positive action atleast after he entered appearance and engaged the services of an Advocate before the Trial Magistrate. No such attempt is made. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:13589 CRL.RP No. 101 of 2021 HC-KAR
11. Merely on the oral say of the accused that the cheques were misappropriated by the complainant would not be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Act. Accordingly, conviction of the accused is just and proper.
12. Having said so, there is no power for the Court while dealing with the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to award interest on the cheque amount and the power vested in the Magistrate or the Appellate Court is ordering the enhanced amount of compensation in respect of the cheque.
13. Taking note of the same, the order of the First Appellate Court awarding interest at 12% needs to be set aside. Likewise imposing of a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State also needs to be set aside as lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved.
14. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:13589 CRL.RP No. 101 of 2021 HC-KAR
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- awarded by trial Magistrate as compensation is reduced to sum over Rs.1,29,000/-.
(iii) Entire sum of Rs.1,29,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Awarding of Rs.1,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State by the Trial Magistrate and awarding interest at 12% by the First Appellate Court is hereby set aside. Office is directed to return the trial court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20