Karnataka High Court
Sri Neelappa M vs Smt B Lakshmamma on 22 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.926/2021
BETWEEN
SRI NEELAPPA M
S/O SRI MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO 512, 6TH 'A' MAIN
AECS LAYOUT, 'A' BLOCK
WARD NO 191, SINGASANDRA
KUDLU, BENGLAURU - 560068
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V R BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. B LAKSHMAMMA
W/O SRI DUGGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO 189, 9TH CROSS
1ST MAIN, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE
HSR LAYOUT II SECTOR
SOMSUNDARAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560103
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI HARISH KUMAR H, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 02.01.2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED XXXIII A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.58963/2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the respective
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner
had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent
and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% but
the petitioner did not repaid the same as agreed and only on
demand, he had issued the cheque and when the said cheque
was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement
'payment stopped by the drawer' and hence, the notice was
issued and the same was served and no reply was given to the
said notice. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the Trial
Court. Thereafter the Trial Court took the cognizance and
secured the petitioner herein. The respondent in order to
substantiate her contention, examined herself as PW1 and got
marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. The petitioner though
took the defence in the cross-examination of PW1 that the
cheque was given in favour of one Siddaraju and not in favour of
the respondent, he did not choose to lead any evidence before
the Trial Court to rebut the evidence of the respondent. Hence,
the Trial court convicted the petitioner herein sentencing him to
pay fine of Rs.3,14,750/- and the same is challenged before the
Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25030/2020 and the Appellate Court
also on reconsideration of material available on record,
dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Trial Court.
Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.
3. The very contention of the counsel for the petitioner
before this Court is that the respondent has not having any
source of income to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the
other contention is that the cheque was given in favour of one
Siddaraju and not in favour of the respondent and this aspect
was not considered by both the Courts. The counsel for the
respondent would submits that the issuance of cheque is not in
dispute but only contention is that the cheque was given in
favour of one Siddaraju. In order to substantiate the said
contention, not led any rebuttal evidence and even not examined
said Siddaraju and the said defence which has been taken
remains as defence. Hence, this Court cannot find fault with the
reasons given by both the Courts.
4. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for
the parties and also on perusal of the material available on
record it is clear that the complainant examined herself as PW1
and got marked the documents particularly, Ex.P1-cheque. The
very issuance of cheque is not disputed but only the contention
is that the cheque was issued in favour of one Siddaraju and in
order to prove the said fact also the petitioner did not choose to
enter into the witness box and rebut the evidence of the
respondent. It is also important to note that the notice was
issued and the same was served and postal acknowledgment
also produced at Ex.P5 and no reply was given to the said notice.
Hence, it is clear that the said defence is taken only after
thought during the course of trial. No doubt, he was cross-
examined PW1 and in order to elicit her defence nothing is
elicited and this aspect has been considered by both the Courts.
In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, first of all, the Court
has to draw the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.
Act and the said presumption also has to be drawn. I have
already pointed out that the issuance of cheque is admitted and
signature is also admitted but only contention is that it was
given in favour of one Siddaraju and the said Siddaraju also not
examined to prove DW1's defence. When such being the factual
aspects of the case, I do not find any merit in the revision
petition to admit the petition. Accordingly, the revision petition
is dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A, if any,
does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
