Karnataka High Court
M/S Cianto vs Sri S Srinivasan on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.655 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Cianto,
No.66/2, 15 t h Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560055.
2. Smt. Kusum J.Biyani,
M/s. Cianto, Proprietor,
No.66/2, 15 t h Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Beng aluru-560055.
...Petitioners
(By Sri Jag annathan P., Ad vocate)
AND:
Sri S.Srinivasan,
Aged 60 years,
S/o Late A.S.Sampath,
R/at No.9/2, 2 n d Main Road ,
Hanumaiah Layout, Sanjay Nag ar,
Beng aluru-560094.
...Respondent
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the judgment/ord er d ated 24.02.2020 at
:: 2 ::
Annexure-A p assed in Crl.A.No.974/2019 on the file of
the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Jud ge at
Beng aluru (CCH-68) and consequently set aside the
judgment d ated 27.03.2019 passed in
C.C.No.19973/2017, on the file of the learned XII
A.C.M.M., at Bengaluru by allowing the said Crl.RP.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
admission this d ay, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
at the time of admission.
2. The petitioners are accused in
C.C.No.19973/2017 on the file of XII A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru. As they have suffered judgment of
conviction in relation to offence under section 138
of N.I.Act, and sentenced to fine of Rs.10,25,000/-
with default sentence of three months
imprisonment, they preferred an appeal to the
LXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru by filing Crl.A.No.974/2019. Since the
:: 3 ::
appeal also was dismissed, the petitioners have
preferred this revision petition.
3. The first accused is a proprietary concern
and the second accused is its proprietrix. It is the
case of the complainant that in the first week of
October, 2016, the accused availed loan of
Rs.11,60,000/- from the complainant for
development and improvement of their business.
Having obtained loan, the accused executed three
promissory notes, consideration receipts and
issued four post-dated cheques drawn on
Corporation Bank, Sadashivanagar for
Rs.11,60,000/-. These cheques were dishonoured
when they were presented before the bank for
encashment and this resulted in initiation of
criminal case for the offence under section 138 of
N.I.Act after issuance of demand notice.
4. The trial court found that the complainant
was able to prove that the cheques were issued by
:: 4 ::
the accused for discharging their liability and thus
convicted the accused and sentenced as aforesaid.
The specific defence is that the second accused
issued cheques in question by way of security for
loan obtained by her brother. The trial court has
found this defence improbable to be accepted. In
Para 13 of the judgment of the trial court, it is
observed that the brother of the second accused
died on 7.7.2014, whereas the loan was obtained
by the accused in the year 2016. That apart
accused no.2 also made part payment of
Rs.1,25,000/- and this itself would show that
second accused borrowed money from the
complainant. Ex.P.1 to 4 are the four cheques and
Ex.P.14 to 16 are the promissory notes and
consideration receipts executed by the accused.
In this view, the trial court ruled out the defence
to hold the accused guilty. The trial court has also
re-appreciated the evidence to come to same
conclusion. In this view, I do not find any merit to
:: 5 ::
admit this revision petition as both the courts
have not committed any error in holding the
petitioner guilty of the offence under section 138
N.I.Act. Therefore petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sd
