Karnataka High Court
Mr Sushir Kumar vs Mr Padmanabha B on 2 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24728
CRL.RP No. 981 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 981 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MR. SUSHIR KUMAR,
S/O LATE R.D. SUVARNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
HOUSE NO. 2-78/6(2)
MARIKAMBALA TEMPLE ROAD,
JAYASHREE GATE,
KULSHEKAR GATE,
MANGALURU 575 005
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. PADMANABHA B.,
Digitally
signed by S/O LATE GANGAYYA,
YAMUNA K L AGED 56 YEARS,
Location: High MATHASHREE,
Court of
Karnataka BAREBAIL BEJAI,
KAPIKADU,
MANGALURU 575 006
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHEETY K., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2021
PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24728
CRL.RP No. 981 of 2021
JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.16/2018 AND THE
JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MANGALURU, D.K. IN
C.C.NO.229/2014 AND THEREBY REVISION PETITIONER /
ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED FROM THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
N.I. ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Shashikanth Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sanathkumar Shetty. K., learned counsel for respondent.
2. Revision petitioner is an accused who suffered as on of conviction in C.C.229/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'NI Act') and confirmed in Crl.A.No.16/2018 where by he was ordered to pay fine amount of a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was ordered to pay as compensation to the complainant and the balance amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petitioner are as under: -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24728 CRL.RP No. 981 of 2021
4. The complaint got lodged for criminal prosecution against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act contending that accused is his friend who approached him in May-2013 for the financial assistance for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said amount was lent by the complainant with a promise made by the accused that the amount would be return in June-2013. Towards the repayment of the loan, accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No.005677 drawn on Karnataka Rajya Kaigarika Sahakari Bank Niyamith, Mangaluru branch on 17.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonor with en endorsement funds insufficient.
5. Legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to repay the amount covered under the cheque.
6. Though the accused has received the notice, there was no compliance to the callings of notice. Thereafter, the learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. Plea was recorded and accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record 6 documentary evidences which were executed and marked as Ex.P1 to P6, comprising of dishonored cheque, bank -4- NC: 2024:KHC:24728 CRL.RP No. 981 of 2021 endorsement, office copy of the legal notice, postal acknowledgment, balance sheet and copy of the sale deed. No useful materials are elicited in cross examination of PW.1 to dislodge the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
8. Accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein, accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances.
9. Thereafter, accused stepped in into the witness box and examine himself as DW.1 and placed on record the copy of the P.U.C. marks card of Shrinika. S and a letter issued by the Chartered Accountant dated 16.02.20015.
10. Learned Trial Magistrate thereafter heard the parties and noted that the complainant has discharged the initial burden by placing the oral and documentary evidence on record so as to invoke the presumption available under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, in favour of the complainant and the defense placed on record by the accused was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption and convicted the accused as aforesaid.
11. Being aggrieved by the same accused has preferred an appeal before the district Court in Crl.A.No.16/2018. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:24728 CRL.RP No. 981 of 2021
12. The learned Judge in the appellate Court, after securing the Trial Courts records and hearing the parties in detail in the light of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.
13. Thereafter accused is before this Court in this revision petition.
14. Sri. Shashikath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in this revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record in finding out the financial capacity of the complainant to lend a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.
15. He also pointed out that according to the complainant, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was lent individually whether the balance sheet is filed by that of the partnership firm and therefore there was no financial capacity for the complainant to lend the money and sought for allowing the revision petition.
16. Per contra, Sri. Sanathkumar shetty. K., learned counsel representing the respondent supports the impugned judgment.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:24728 CRL.RP No. 981 of 2021
17. Having heard the parties in detail this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record it is crystal clear that the cheque in question has been issued by the accused in favor of complainant and there is no dispute as to the signature of the accused there in.
18. Having placed on record the oral and documentary evidence, especially the dishonored cheque, copy of the bank endorsement and signature of the accused not being disputed in the dishonor cheque, the complainant enjoys the presumption as is found under Section 139 of the NI Act. Therefore, theory put forward on behalf of the revision petitioner that the complainant did not possess the lending capacity can not be countenance in law.
19. No doubt, such presumption is a rebuttal presumption. In order to rebut such presumption, accused got examined himself on record as DW.1 and placed on record 2 documents. Documentary evidence and the oral evidence placed on record by the accused was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant and as such, Trial Magistrate has rightly refused to accept the defense and convicted the accused.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:24728 CRL.RP No. 981 of 2021
20. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the material evidence on record while confirming the order of conviction.
21. This Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction, can not revisit into the factual aspects of the matter in appreciating the case put forward on behalf of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, order of conviction confirmed in the First Appellate Court does not require any interference by this Court in this revision.
22. Having said this both the Court have misdirected themselves in imposing sum of Rs.2,000/- as fine amount towards the State for the purpose of defraying expenses. Lis is privy to the parties and state machinery is involved, imposing the fine amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the State needs to be set aside. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, the fine -8- NC: 2024:KHC:24728 CRL.RP No. 981 of 2021 amount ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- is modified to the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and sum of Rs.2000/- imposed as fine towards the State is hereby set aside.
iii. Entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is to be
paid as compensation to the
complainant; failing which, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
iv. Time is granted till 20.07.2024 to pay the balance amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48