Mrs Maimoona Azeez vs Mr Ismail Kalanda
2021 Latest Caselaw 1149 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.178 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

MRS MAIMOONA AZEEZ,
W/O LATE M A AZEEZ,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 905,
CLASSIQUE PARDISE,
K S RAO ROAD,
MANGALURU - 575 001.                 ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR ISMAIL KALANDA,
S/O MR H KALANDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
M N TOWERS, KADRI,
MANGALURU - 575 001.                ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE)
                        ****
     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.103/2011,
DT:02.01.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND
THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.05.2011 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE JMFC (IV COURT) MANGALORE, D.K., IN
C.C.NO.907/2008     AND      THEREBY        REVISION
                                2

PETITION/ACCUSED MAY BE ACQUITTED               FROM     THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I.ACT.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING:

                         ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the revision

petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant

regarding admission.

2. Having heard the submissions of both

counsels, this Court has gone through the impugned order

and records.

3. The trial Court, on analysis of evidence placed

on record, has arrived at the factual finding that the

revision petitioner/accused had issued the cheque in

question in favour of the respondent/complainant in

discharge of a debt or liability. The cheque was presented

to the bank for payment within the period of its validity,

but it was returned with endorsement "account closed".

Since there was no response to the statutory notice duly

issued by the respondent/complainant, a private

complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

4. The appellate Court has affirmed the aforesaid

factual findings. This revision petition is filed against the

concurrent findings of Courts below. It is well settled

principle that in exercise of revision jurisdiction, the High

Court does not, in the absence of perversity, interfere with

the concurrent factual findings. This Court cannot re-

appreciate or re-interpret the evidence which is already

discussed by the Courts below. There are no reasons to

hold that the Courts below have overlooked the material

evidence.

5. The submission made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner/accused do not make out that the

Courts below have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction

illegally or with material irregularity. Hence, there are no

valid grounds to admit the revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the trial Court has imposed fine amount of

Rs.3,12,000/-. The petitioner has already deposited a sum

of Rs.1,50,000/- before the trial Court and this Court has

permitted the respondent/complainant to withdraw the

said amount. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit

the balance amount of Rs.1,62,000/- within a reasonable

time.

7. For the foregoing reasons this Court pass the

following:

ORDER

Revision petition is dismissed.

However, the revision petitioner/accused is

granted two months time to deposit the balance

amount of Rs.1,62,000/- before the trial Court from

the date of this order failing which the petitioner

shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

eight months as ordered by the trial Court.

Registry is directed to send back the records to

the concerned Court immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR