Sri Louis James vs Sri Prasad Palegar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1865 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 07 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.195 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Sri Louis James
Aged about 69 years,
R/o MF 1/11, HAL 3 r d Stag e,
New Tippasandra,
Beng aluru-560075.
                                          ...Petitioner
(By Sri V.C.Rajkumar, Advocate)

AND:

Sri Prasad Paleg ar,
S/o Late D.N.Paleg ar,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.22, 8 t h Cross,
Kumara Park West,
Beng aluru-560020.
                                        ...Respondent
(By Sri K.S.Arun, Advocate)

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the judgment dated 03.08.2019 p assed in
C.C.No.10418/2018 on the file of the XV ACMM
Beng aluru and acquit the petitioner by reversing the
judgment      dismissing   the     Criminal    Appeal
No.1878/2019 dated 04.10.2021 on the file of the
LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Beng aluru City and thereby allow this Revision
Petition.
                                   :: 2 ::


    This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
admission this d ay, the Court made the following:

                                 ORDER

Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The

petitioner has been convicted for the offence under

section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

sentenced to fine of Rs.40,05,000/- with default

sentence of 18 months simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the respondent/complainant

is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of

Rs.40,00,000/- from him and issued three cheques

for discharging the said loan. All the three cheques

were dishonoured for the reason that there was no

sufficient funds in the bank account of the

petitioner. This resulted in prosecuting the

petitioner.

3. The submission of the counsel for the

petitioner is that actually the petitioner stood as a

guarantor for the loan obtained by four persons

namely Dinesh, Malathi Iyer, Anand Basappa and :: 3 ::

Vinodh Shivappa from the respondent. He issued

the cheques in question to the respondent as he

stood as a guarantor for them. The respondent

initiated action against those persons and one case

was settled. This shows that the petitioner did not

issue cheques for discharging his legally

enforceable debt. The respondent has not

produced any document to show that he lent a

sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the petitioner and that

he misutilised the cheques issued by him when he

stood as a guarantor for the said four persons.

4. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court

shows that the respondent produced two

documents Exs. P10 and P11 in proof of the fact

that the petitioner had obtained loan from him. It

is found that the petitioner acknowledged receipt

of Rs.40,00,000/- by executing Exs. P10 and P11.

As suggestions were given to PW1 disputing the

contents and signatures on Exs.P10 and P11, the :: 4 ::

trial court held that the onus was on the petitioner

to establish his defence and mere suggestions

would not meet the requirement. The petitioner

failed to disprove that Exs.P10 and P11 were not

issued for obtaining loan from the respondent. In

this view, the trial court came to conclusion to

convict the petitioner for the offence under section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The

appeal preferred by the petitioner also failed.

5. On perusing the judgments of the trial

court and the appellate court, I do not find that

the petitioner has been able to rebut the evidence

of the complainant. He admits issuance of

cheques. Exs.P10 and P11 are not disproved at

all. Therefore his defence that he issued the

cheques in question being a gurantor for four

persons cannot be believed. I do not find any

infirmity in the judgment of the appellate court :: 5 ::

which confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

There are no merits. Petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

ckl/-