R. Geetha vs Shanthamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 245 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 06 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.698 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

R.Geetha,
W/o Shivakumar,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.33/3, SK School Road,
6 t h Cross, Hanumaiah Layout,
Kodig ehalli, Sahakaranagara Post,
Beng aluru-560092.
                                          ...Petitioner
(By Sri Annaiah C.V., Advocate)

AND:

Shanthamma,
W/o Muniyapp a,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.2290,
Sanjeevini Nag ar Main Road,
Sanjeevini Nag ar,
Sahakaranag ara Post,
Beng aluru-92.
                                        ...Respondent
(By Sri R.Shashidhara, Advocate)

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the imp ugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence and fine imposed by the XVIII Additional
Chief     Metropolitan  Magistrate,   Beng aluru   in
C.C.No.8346/2016, dated 02.07.2018 and to set aside
the ord er p assed by the appellant court in Criminal
                              :: 2 ::


Appeal No.1468/2018, dated 01.04.2019 passed by
the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Beng aluru (CCH No.67) further be p leased to acquit
the petitioner.

     This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
admission through video conferencing this d ay, the
Court mad e the following:


                         ORDER

Heard the petitioner's counsel and the

respondent's counsel at the time of admission.

2. The petitioner has assailed the judgment

dated 1.4.2019 passed by the Appellate Court in

Crl.A.No.1468/2018.

3. The petitioner is the accused in

C.C.No.8346/2016 on the file of XVIII Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in a proceeding

initiated under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act by the respondent. The

respondent stated in her complaint that the

petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from

her to meet her family necessities and agreed to

repay the said amount within ten months. Inspite :: 3 ::

of repeated requests, the petitioner did not repay

it and ultimately she issued a cheque bearing

No.992423 dated 13.1.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

The said cheque was not honoured when it was

presented before the bank. After issuance of legal

notice, the respondent made a complaint to the

court of Magistrate for the offence under section

138 of N.I.Act.

4. The trial court after assessing the

evidence, held that the petitioner issued the

cheque in question for discharging her legally

enforceable debt. The entire evidence of the

complainant, who adduced evidence as PW.1 stood

un-rebutted. The petitioner failed to introduce

specific defence. In fact the petitioner failed to

cross-examine PW-1. In these circumstances, the

trial court found the petitioner guilty of the

offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and

sentenced her to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in :: 4 ::

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one

year. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,90,000/- is

ordered to be paid to the respondent towards

compensation.

5. Challenging the judgment of the trial

court, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the

Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

The appellate court, having noticed the fact that

the entire evidence of PW.1 stood un-rebutted and

that the petitioner having failed to cross-examine

PW-1, confirmed the judgment of the trial court

and confirmed the sentence also.

6. In this revision petition, learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that both the courts

below have not properly appreciated the evidence

and therefore the judgments of both the courts

below are to be set aside. I have perused the

judgments of the courts below. The respondent

has clearly stated that the petitioner borrowed :: 5 ::

money for her legal necessities and in that

connection she issued a cheque. Entire evidence

of PW-1 has not been assailed at all. In fact it has

been observed very clearly by the appellate court

that the petitioner, in spite of having given several

opportunities to cross-examine PW.1, did not avail

of it. In these circumstances, the courts are

justified in coming to conclusion that the

respondent has proved her case. Both the courts

below have not committed any infirmity in holding

the petitioner guilty of the offence committed

under section 138 of N.I.Act. I do not find any

good ground to admit this petition. Even the

sentence imposed by the trial court is proper and

justifiable and therefore this revision petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd