Sri H R Yathish Raj vs Sri Ravikumar N S
2022 Latest Caselaw 2790 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.59 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Sri H.R.Yathish Raj,
Son of Late H.Rudrapp a,
Aged about 45 years,
Resid ent of Holebenavalli,
Holehonnur Main Road,
Shivamogga Taluk-577222.
                                           ...Petitioner
(By Sri S.Sammith, Advocate)

AND:

Sri Ravikumar N.S.,
Son of Sri N.T.Sathyanarayana Rao,
Aged about 45 years,
Resid ent of Banashankari Street,
Nidig e Post, Shivamogg a Taluk-577222.
                                          ...Respondent

     This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the judgment d ated 10.01.2020 passed by the
III Additional District and Session Judge, Shivamogga,
dismissing the said Criminal App eal No.168/2019 and
also the judgment and ord er of sentencing dated
12.07.2019 p assed by the II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Shivamogga in C.C.No.437/2016.

    This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
admission this d ay, the Court made the following:
                            :: 2 ::


                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

Sri. Sammith S., at the time of admission.

2. The petitioner is the accused, who has

suffered a judgment of conviction for the offence

under section 138 of N.I.Act. The learned

Magistrate has sentenced him to pay fine of

Rs.4,20,000/- with default sentence of simple

imprisonment for one year. The appeal preferred

by the petitioner was also dismissed confirming

the judgment of the trial court.

3. Sri. Sammith S., counsel for the petitioner

submits that the respondent being the complainant

was not able to prove his financial capacity to lend

an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner, that

the respondent examined his wife as PW.2 to

prove his financial capacity, that PW.2 was an

interested witness, that her evidence does not

disclose that she had an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, :: 3 ::

and that because sale deed was signed by nine

persons and it shows that the total sale

consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- was shared by nine

persons, she could not have received

Rs.4,00,000/- to give the same to her husband so

that he could lend the money to the petitioner.

Therefore the conviction against the petitioner

cannot be restrained.

4. On perusal of the entire judgment of the

trial court, it is found that the learned Magistrate

has properly appreciated the evidence. So far as

the financial capacity of the respondent is

concerned, it is his evidence that he obtained the

money from his wife who had received

Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents. She has stated

that her parents received Rs.4,00,000/- by selling

an immovable property. On perusing the entire

cross-examination of PW.2, it is found that the

property had been sold for Rs.6,00,000/-, and that

she also denied the suggestion that the :: 4 ::

consideration amount was divided among nine

persons who had signed the sale deed. Thus

merely because there are nine signatories to sale

deed, it does not mean that the consideration

amount has to be shared by all the nine persons.

This is not a civil case where all such questions

can be raised. So if it is proved that the petitioner

received Rs.4,00,000/- from his wife and gave the

same money to the petitioner, the financial

capacity of the respondent cannot be doubted. In

this view, both the courts have appreciated the

evidence properly. There is no infirmity in

convicting the accused. Petition is devoid of

merits. It is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of this petition,

I.A.2/2022 does not survive for consideration and

accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE sd