Naveen N vs K Ravi
2023 Latest Caselaw 5337 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC:27704
                                                     CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2019




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1452 OF 2019
                   BETWEEN:

                   NAVEEN .N S/O NAGARAJ,
                   AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                   RESIDING AT SYN HOUSE
                   5TH CROSS, AMC LAYOUT,
                   VIDYARANYAPURA,
                   BENGALURU-560 097,

                   ALSO RESIDING AT:
                   NAVEEN .N S/O NAGARAJ,
                   AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                   C/O PEARL VALLEY EDUCATION TRUST,
                   NEAR KRISHNA BAKERY,
                   NARASIPURA LAYOUT,
                   VIDYARANYAPURA,
                   BENGALURU-560 097.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed   (BY SRI. A. S. KULKARNI , ADVOCATE)
by                 AND:
RENUKAMBA K
G
                   K. RAVI S/O T. KRISHNAPPA,
Location: High
Court of           AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Karnataka          RESIDING AT NO.13/4, 3RD CROSS,
                   2ND MAIN, VALMIKINAGAR,
                   MYSORE ROAD,
                   BENGALURU-560 026.
                                                              ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE)
                        THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.
                   PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
                   SENTENCE DATED 02.06.2018 PASSED BY THE XVIII
                   ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.21287/2017 AND SET
                             -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC:27704
                                   CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2019




ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED BY THE LV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
IN CRL.A.NO.1058/2018 IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR
AN OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

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

This revision is filed by the revision petitioner

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru in

CC.No.21287/2017 dated 02.06.2018 and confirmed by

LV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in

Crl.A.No.1058/2018 dated 14.10.2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original ranks occupied by them

before the trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that the complainant and accused are family friends and

due to their close relationship, in the last week of March-

2017, the accused requested the complainant for a hand

loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and as per the request, the

NC: 2023:KHC:27704 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2019

complainant has advanced a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to

the accused on 05.04.2016. However, the accused did not

repay the said amount as agreed and issued a cheque

dated 19.06.2017, drawn on State Bank of Mysore,

Bengaluru. When the said cheque was presented for

encashment, it bounced for insufficient of funds. Hence,

the complainant has issued a legal notice to the accused.

Though the notice came to be served on the accused, he

did not respond and hence, the complaint came to be

lodged.

4. After recording the sworn statement, the

learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and accused has

appeared and denied the accusation. The learned

Magistrate after the trial, convicted the accused for the

offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, (for short "NI Act") by imposing

sentence to pay fine of Rs.4,60,000/- in default of

imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved

by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the

NC: 2023:KHC:27704 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2019

accused has approached LV City Civil & Sessions Judge,

Bangalore in Crl.A.No.1058/2018 and learned Sessions

Judge after re-appreciating the oral as well as

documentary evidence vide judgment dated 14.10.2019,

dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

Against these concurrent findings, the petitioner is before

this Court.

5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for

the respondent /complainant. Perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would contend that the accused did not cross-examine the

complainant and virtually it is an ex-parte order and

hence, he seeks indulgence from the Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

would contend that the accused though appeared before

the trial Court, did not participated in the proceedings. He

would further submit that even after filing this revision, a

NC: 2023:KHC:27704 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2019

conditional order was granted and it was extended as per

his request. But the same was not complied with and even

a single rupee was not deposited by the accused as

directed by this Court. Hence, he would contend that this

clearly discloses the conduct of the accused and sought for

dismissal of the revision.

8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, now the following point would arise for my

consideration:

""Whether the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by trial Court and confirmed by appellate court are perverse, erroneous and arbitrary so as to call for any interference by this Court?"

9. It is the specific contention of the petitioner

that accused has availed hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from

the complainant, agreeing to pay the same within one

year. The complainant in support of his contention, has

also placed reliance on Ex.P7, which is a loan agreement.

NC: 2023:KHC:27704 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2019

Ex.P1 is the cheque issued by the accused for a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- and signature on the cheque is not

disputed. Admittedly, cheque returned for insufficient of

funds. Ex.P3 is the legal notice, Ex.P4 is postal receipts

and Ex.P5 is the postal track report which discloses that

notice has been served on the accused. The accused did

not reply to the said notice. Hence, the initial presumption

under Section 139 of NI Act is in favour of the

complainant.

10. Apart from that, though the accused has

appeared before the Court, he did not choose to challenge

the evidence of complainant by cross-examining him. The

evidence of complainant itself remained unchallenged.

11. Even the records of this Court disclose that the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

was stayed subject to payment of 20% of cheque amount

as per initial order, which was subsequently modified with

a direction to deposit 50% of the fine amount. Even

though time was extended, the records disclose that the

NC: 2023:KHC:27704 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2019

accused has not deposited a single pie before this Court.

This discloses the attitude of the accused towards the legal

proceedings. The presumption in favour of the complainant

is not rebutted and the evidence on record clearly

establishes that the accused without there being any

sufficient amount in his account has issued cheque and

thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of NI

Act. No perversity or illegality is found with the order of

the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court.

Looking to these facts and circumstances, the point under

consideration is answered in the negative and as such,

revision petition being devoid of any merits does not

survive for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

Revision petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE DS