Sri. Venkatramana Hegde vs Sri. Preetham Shetty
2021 Latest Caselaw 1201 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.210 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATRAMANA HEGDE,
S/O VASUDEVA HEGDE,
AGED 46 YEARS,
R/A SUPREME MEDICALS,
OPP HIGHLAND HOSPITAL,
MANGALURU-575 002.                        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI MOHAN MAIYA G L, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI PREETHAM SHETTY,
S/O M J SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A AMBASHREE,
KOLNADU BALIKE HOUSE,
HALEYANGADY POST,
MANGALORE-574 146,
D.K.                                    ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI DINESH KUMAR K RAO, ADVOCATE)
                            ****

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2018 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.159/2016 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
                                 2


24.10.2016 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C (IV COURT), MANGALURU, D.K.
IN C.C.NO.294/2014.

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

                            ORDER

Though this petition is for admission, with the consent of

learned counsel for both the parties, arguments heard for final

disposal.

2. This revision petition is filed for setting aside the

judgment dated 22.12.2018 in Crl.A. No.159/2016 passed by

the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru,

and the judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed in C.C.

No.294/2014 by the JMFC, (IV Court) Mangaluru, D.K.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and

respondent. Perused the orders of the Courts below.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the revision

petitioner accused had availed loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/-

from the complainant in the month of June, 2009. In order to

discharge the liability the accused had issued a cheque bearing

No.672950 dated 17.11.2009 for Rs.3,00,000/- towards legally

payable debt. When the complainant presented the cheque to

the bank the same was dishonored and returned with a bank

endorsement dated 18.11.2009 that 'exceed arrangement'. After

dishonor of the cheque the complainant got issued a legal notice

dated 09.12.2009 through Registered Post Acknowledgement

Due (RPAD) for repayment of the amount and notice was served

on the accused, but he gave evasive reply to the notice on

30.12.2009. Hence a complaint was filed under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The trial Court took cognizance of the case under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued

process to the accused. The accused appeared before the Court

and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After recording

the evidence the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,12,000/- and in default

to pay a fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six months. Further it was ordered to pay a

compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant out of the

fine received. The accused being aggrieved by the said order

preferred the appeal before the IV Additional District and

Sessions Court, Mangaluru in Crl.A. No.159/2016 which came

to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the

revision petition for setting aside the orders passed by the

Courts below.

6. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel

for the revision petitioner and respondent regarding admission

this Court has gone through the orders passed by the Courts

below.

7. The trial Court on analysis of the evidence adduced

by the respective parties arrived at the factual finding that the

revision petitioner - accused had duly issued the cheque in

question for Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant in

discharge of a debt for liability. The said cheque was presented

to the Bengaluru for payment within a period of its validity, but

the cheque had been returned unpaid for 'exceed arrangement'.

Statutory notice of dishonor was issued for which the accused

has given evasive reply and on the basis of the evidence it has

held that the complainant has proved that the accused has

committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

8. The First Appellate Court (Sessions Court) affirmed

the aforesaid factual findings. The trial Court and the appellate

Court has rejected the plea of the accused that the complainant

respondent has misused the signed blank cheque made over by

the person called Srinivas Prabhu, on the reason that the said

person has not been examined before the Court. In view of the

admission regarding the signature on the cheque and other

relevant evidence the first appellate Court has held that there

are no grounds to interfere with the finding given by the trial

Court.

9. It is well settled principle that in exercise of revision

jurisdiction the High Court does not in absence of perversity

upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The scope of

the provision under Section 397 is to set right the patent defect

or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has

crept in the proceedings as observed in a decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in AIR 2017 SC 796 (State of Rajasthan

vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu). In the instant case no grounds have

been made out to prove the perversity of the order or the patent

defect. Hence this Court is of the view that there are no valid

grounds to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, I pass the

following -

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.

The amount in deposit before the trial Court shall be

released to the respondent - complainant.

Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records

forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE ykl