Smt.Suguna H J vs Sri.E.Kumaraswamy Naidu
2022 Latest Caselaw 454 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1244 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Smt. Suguna H.J.,
Aged about 40 years,
Proprietor of A.P.Enterp rises,
No.102, "Anand Altair",
Anand Group, 4 t h Cross,
5 t h Main, BMC Layout,
Rag huvanahalli,
Kanakapura Road,
Beng aluru-560062.
                                         ...Petitioner
(By Sri Gireesha R.J., Advocate)

AND:

Sri E.Kumaraswamy Naidu,
Aged about 40 years,
Proprietor of JMT Enterp rises,
R/at NO.21/38, 2 n d Main,
Kaverapp a Layout, AGS Layout,
Beng aluru-560061.
                                       ...Respondent

     This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the judgment of conviction p assed by the VI
Additional  Judge,   Court  of  Small  Causes    and
Addl.C.M.M., Beng aluru in C.C.No.21236/2017 dated
19.12.2019 and etc.
                               :: 2 ::


     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 at the time of

admission.

2. The petitioner has challenged the

judgment dated 23.07.2021 passed by the LXV

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

in Crl.A.No.154/2020. The petitioner is accused in

C.C.No.21236/2017, a proceeding under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I.Act'

for short).

3. It is the case of the respondent/

complainant that the petitioner issued two cheques

for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,21,750/-, respectively,

on 15.06.2017 to clear part of her liability in

connection with purchase of cement from the

respondent. Since the said cheques were

dishonored for want of funds in her bank account, :: 3 ::

the respondent initiated action under Section 138

of N.I.Act.

4. The respondent adduced evidence as

PW1. The judgment of the trial Court shows that

the petitioner did not cross examine PW1 inspite of

giving several opportunities. Holding that the

respondent's evidence has remained unchallenged,

the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act

and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,05,000/- with

default sentence for a period of three months

imprisonment and out of the fine amount,

Rs.3,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to the

respondent towards compensation.

5. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction,

the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of

LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.154/2020. The appellate

Court has also observed the conduct of the :: 4 ::

petitioner in not cross examining PW1 inspite of

giving sufficient chances. It is also observed that

the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the

case and that she did not comply with the order

passed by it on 24.12.2020, and in view of this,

the appeal came to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that actually the petitioner has cleared

the entire money that she owed to the respondent

and that the cheques in question were issued by

way of security. But this contention cannot be

accepted, because, if really the entire money had

been paid and that there did not exist any liability,

nothing prevented the petitioner from cross-

examining PW1 to that effect.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioner was denied of an opportunity of cross

examining PW1. This contention cannot be

accepted, because, it is not as though the :: 5 ::

petitioner was denied of an opportunity of cross

examining PW1, rather, it may be stated that she

did not avail the opportunities given to her by the

trial Court. In this view, I do not find any merit to

admit this petition. Both the Courts have come to

right conclusion to hold the petitioner guilty of the

offence. The sentence imposed on her is also

adequate. Hence revision petition is dismissed.

IA No.1/2021 is dismissed as not pressed, as

the revision petition is filed within time. IA

No.2/2021 does not survive for consideration. It

stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-