M/S Unique Training Corporation ... vs Sri Deepak Artal
2022 Latest Caselaw 5096 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1096/2021

BETWEEN:

1.   M/S. UNIQUE TRAINING CORPORATION
     INDIA PVT. LTD.,
     HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
     AT NO.23, 1ST FLOOR, SANKEY SQUARE
     SANKEY ROAD, SADASHIVNAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560080
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR
     AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
     SRI B.P.GANGAHANUMAIAH

2.   SRI B.P.GANGAHANUMAIAH
     S/O PAPAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED
     SIGNATORY OF M/S UNIQUE TRAINING
     CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,
     A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
     COMPANIES ACT 1956
     HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
     AT NO.23, 1ST FLOOR
     SANKEY SQUARE, SANKEY ROAD
     SADASHIVNAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 080.             ...PETITIONERS

          (BY SRI V.F.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR
       SMT.USHA M.V., ADVOCATE [THROUGH V.C.])
                                2



AND:

SRI DEEPAK ARTAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O ARTAL B.H.
RESIDING AT NO.834
22ND CROSS, 8TH 'A' MAIN
H.S.R. LAYOUT, SECTOR - 7
BENGALURU - 560 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SMT.KASTURI ARTAL
W/O LATE G.SINGH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.834,
22ND CROSS, 8TH 'A' MAIN
H.S.R. LAYOUT, SECTOR-7
BENGALURU - 560 102.                           ...RESPONDENT

              (BY SRI M.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 12.11.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.55671/2018
RENDERED BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU WHICH IS
CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.25003/2021 JUDGMENT DATED
30.09.2021 BY THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-73) BY
ACQUITTING THE PETITIONERS FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT.

    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                           ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent-

complainant is that he had booked a site by paying advance

amount of Rs.2,06,400/- to the petitioners-accused and together

entered into a sale agreement. However, due to delay in

registration of the sale deed, the site booked by the complainant

was cancelled and in turn of the said advance amount, the

petitioners-accused have issued subject matter cheque dated

26.02.2018. When the same was presented, it has returned

with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, legal notice

was sent through RPAD and also Certificate of Posting. Inspite

of service on the petitioners-accused on 07.05.2018, the

petitioners neither paid the amount nor replied to the notice.

Hence, complaint was filed and the Trial Court took cognizance

and secured the petitioners.

3. To support the case of the respondent-complainant,

the sworn statement filed by the GPA holder of the complainant

i.e., P.W.1 filed by way of affidavit during pre-summoning stage

is considered as evidence and 7 documents are marked as

Exs.P1 to P7. Though, P.W.1 is cross-examined, not led any

defence evidence.

4. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the

petitioners to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-. In default of payment

of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

three months.

5. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence,

an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.25003/2021. The Appellate Court,

on reconsideration of the material on record, dismissed the

appeal. Hence, the presence revision petition is filed before this

Court.

6. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioners that both the Courts committed an error in not

appreciating the material on record, particularly an effective

cross-examination is made in respect of the evidence P.W.1 and

inspite of the answer elicited in the cross-examination that the

said disputed cheque is signed and handed over to one of the

executive of the office of the petitioner, the same has not been

considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court comes to the

conclusion that petitioners have not proved the defence by

leading cogent evidence, but, it is trite impossible to accept that,

the accused need not be entered into witness box, in order to

prove his defence. It is also the very contention of the

petitioners that no notice is served and inspite of it, Trial Court

committed an error.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

complainant would submit that issuance of cheque is not

disputed. The transaction between the petitioners and the

complainant is not in dispute that the said amount is paid by the

respondent-complainant towards sale consideration in respect of

the site and when the agreement was cancelled, the petitioners

repaid the amount by issuing cheque and the said cheque is also

not in dispute. Hence, both the Courts have not committed an

error.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of the material on record, particularly the subject

matter cheque which is marked as Ex.P1 before the Trial Court

and also considering the documents i.e., bank endorsement,

demand notice, postal receipt, courier receipt and postal

acknowledgement which are marked as Exs.P2 to P6

respectively, the very contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that no notice is served on the petitioners cannot be

accepted and even if no notice is served, service of notice on one

of the official of the petitioner itself is sufficient service and the

very contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted with

regard to no proper service.

9. The other contention of the petitioners that both the

Courts have committed an error cannot be accepted when

cheque is admitted and repayment is made towards cancellation

of the sale agreement which had been received by the

petitioners. Taking note of both oral and documentary evidence

placed on record, I am of the opinion that both the Trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court have considered the material on

record. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to admit

the same.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST