Karnataka High Court
Smt B C Kokilavani vs Smt Shanthamma on 3 December, 2021
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.432/2018
C/w.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.431/2018
In Crl.RP. No.432/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT B C KOKILAVANI
WIFE OF SRI M H DEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.65,
4TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NARAYANA V.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT SHANTHAMMA
WIFE OF SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.16/1
11TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560010.
...RESPONDENT
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO A. SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF
CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53) IN CRL.A. NO.1438/2015.
B. SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON THE
FILE OFHTE XIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.
NO.21554/2008 DATED 18.09.2015 AND ORDER OF
CONFIRMATION BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A.
NO.1438/2015 DATED 06.01.2018.
In Crl.RP. No.431/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT B C KOKILAVANI
WIFE OF SRI M H DEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.65,
4TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
LAGGERE BENGALURU-560058.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NARAYANA V.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT SHANTHAMMA
WIFE OF SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.16/1
11TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560010
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.PC
3
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 06.01.2018
PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1437/2015
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
18.09.2015 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU IN C.C. NO.21553/2008 AND ORDER OF
CONFIRMATION BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN
CRL.A.NO.1437/2015 DATED 06.01.2018 AND ALLOW
THIS CRL.RP.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON
FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Sri. Narayana V. S., learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioner in both the cases.
2. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has filed the
memo in both the cases, which reads as under:
"The petitioner in the above case
submits that, she has assailed the legality
or the correctness of the judgment and
order of the Trial Court in C.C.
No.21554/2008, on the file of XIII ACMM, at
Bangalore, convicting the Petitioner for the
offence as contemplated under Section 138
of the NI Act and sentencing to pay fine of
Rs.95,000/- and in default simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The
Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and
order of the Trial Court. Thereagainst,
present Criminal Revision Petition has been
filed by the Petitioner.
It is further submitted that, the
sentence of fine of Rs.95,000/- is on the
higher side and arbitrary as no reason has
been assigned by the Trial Court and as well
Appellate Court for imposing twice the
amount of the cheque. Therefore, the
Petitioner requests this Hon'ble Court kindly
to reduce the fine amount having regard to
her age and financial constraints is become
necessary.
Wherefore, the Petitioner prays that
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to the fine
amount to Rs.10,000/- on the cheque
amount, in the interest of justice."
3. Respondent though served with the notice, has
remained absent.
4. Revision petitioner suffered an order of
conviction under the provisions of 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and ordered to pay fine of
Rs.35,000/- in C.C. No.21553/2008 and a sum of
Rs.95,000/- in C.C. No.21554/2008. Out of which, a sum
of Rs.34,000/- and Rs.92,000/- was ordered to be paid as
compensation.
5. The said order passed by the learned trial
Magistrate was confirmed in Crl.A. No.1437/2015 and
Crl.A. No.1438/2015.
6. After arguing for considerable length of time,
learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in
both the cases has sought for indulgence of this Court in
reducing the fine amount.
7. Admittedly, the cheques were issued in a sum
of Rs.46,000/- and Rs.17,000/- in both the cases
respectively. This Court perused the impugned order for
imposing double the cheque amount as fine amount. But
there is no reason for imposing double the cheque amount
in both the cases. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered opinion that without much discussion on the
merits of the matter, in view of the memo filed by the
revision petitioner in both the cases, a reasonable amount
is to be deducted from the fine amount ordered by the trial
Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-
part.
ii. While maintaining the order of conviction
passed by the trial Magistrate convicting the
accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 by an order of conviction and judgment
dated 18.09.2015, the accused is directed to
pay, for the cheque in a sum of Rs.46,000/-, a
fine of Rs.70,000/- is imposed and in
modification for the cheuqe in a sum of
Rs.17,000/-, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is imposed
as fine.
iii. Since the dispute is a private dispute, no
amount needs to be paid to the State as
defraying expenses and the entire amount of
Rs.70,000/- and Rs.25,000/- is receivable by
the complainant as compensation less if any
amount, already deposited by the revision
petitioner.
iv. The complainant is at liberty to withdrawn the
amount-in-deposit.
v. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to
deposit the balance fine amount, till
28.02.2022.
vi. It is made clear that if the fine amount is not
paid within 28.02.2022, the order of the trial
Magistrate stands restored.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VBS
