Channakeshava vs Dakshayini. M
2022 Latest Caselaw 3243 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 24 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.671 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

CHANNAKESHAVA
S/O GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.61,
MURALI KRISHNA SCHOOL ROAD,
CHIKKAGOWDANAPALYA
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 061.
                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

DAKSHAYINI M
D/O H.MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO. 78/1,
CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 002.
                                      ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)


    THIS   CRIMINAL   REVISION   PETITION   IS   FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 19.11.2018 PASSED BY THE 4th ADDITIONAL
                               :: 2 ::


AND 30th A.C.M.M., (SCCH-6) IN C.C.NO.6176/2017
AND ORDER DATED 29.07.2020 PASSED BY THE LXVIII
ADDITIONAL         CITY    CIVIL    AND           SESSIONS           JUDGE,
BANGALORE         (CCH-69)    IN    CRLA.NO.2521/2018                   AND
ACQUIT      THE      PETITIONER              BY        ALLOWING         THE
REVISION.

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR   ADMISSION           THROUGH       VIDEO            CONFERENCING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Heard Sri Santhosh Kumar M B, learned

counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for

respondent is present.

2. The petitioner is before this court

questioning the judgment in Criminal Appeal

2521/2018 on the file of Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, confirming the

judgment of the Magistrate in C.C.6176/2017

holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under

section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and :: 3 ::

sentencing him to fine of Rs.10,00,000/- with

default sentence of six months imprisonment.

3. The case of the complainant/respondent is

that the petitioner issued two cheques dated

16.9.2016 and 17.9.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- each

for discharging the loan that he had obtained from

the respondent with interest. The two cheques

were dishonoured because the petitioner had given

stop payment instructions to the bank. After

issuance of demand notice, the respondent

initiated action under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The principal defence of the petitioner

appears to be that he had issued two cheques by

way of security and that the respondent did not

return those cheques to him after repayment of

the loan amount. On facts it is held by the

learned Magistrate that the petitioner failed to

place acceptable evidence in proof of repayment of :: 4 ::

the loan. It is also observed that the petitioner

did not reply to the legal notice in spite of service

of notice on him. The Magistrate has found the

defence improbable and therefore proceeded to

convict the petitioner. The appellate court has

also confirmed the said finding.

5. On perusal of the judgments of the

Magistrate and the appellate court, I find that both

the courts below have rightly come to conclusion

to convict the petitioner for the offence under

section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In

this revision there cannot be interference with

facts. Therefore this petition is devoid of merits

and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ckl/-