Karnataka High Court
Sri K Ramamurthy vs Sri Naveen Kumar H R on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31182
CRL.RP No. 742 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 742 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. RAMAMURTHY,
S/O.LATE K. KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.538, 2ND BLOCK,
9TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.L. GOWDA, ADVOCATE(ABSENT))
AND:
SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR .H.R
S/O.C. RAJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HANAKERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by (BY SRI. MOHAN .S, ADVOCATE(ABSENT))
RENUKAMBA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
KG SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED:10.7.14 IN
Location: High CRL.A.NO.144/12 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.S.J., MANDYA
Court of VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
Karnataka SENTENCE DATED:20.11.12 IN C.C.NO.328/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE JMFC, MANDYA, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETR. IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31182
CRL.RP No. 742 of 2014
ORDER
This revision is filed by the revision
petitioner/accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by J.M.F.C., Mandya, in CC.No.328/2009
and confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge,
Mandya, in Crl.A.No.144/2012 vide judgment dated
10.07.2014.
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 accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from
the complainant on 15.06.2008 and towards discharge of
the said debt, he issued a cheque dated 26.09.2008 drawn
on IDBI Bank for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. When the said
cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured
for insufficient of funds and thereafter, legal notice was
issued to the accused, but the same was returned as
NC: 2023:KHC:31182
CRL.RP No. 742 of 2014
'unclaimed'. Hence, the complainant has filed a complaint
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short "N.I. Act).
4. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance,
issued summons to the accused. Accused has appeared
through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The
prosecution papers have been furnished. The complainant
was examined as PW1 and one witness was examined as
PW2 and he placed reliance on seven documents marked
at Exs.P1 to P7. After conclusion of the evidence of the
complainant, the statement of accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was recorded and case of the accused is of total
denial. The accused got examined himself as DW1 and he
has placed reliance on three documents marked at Exs.D1
to D3.
5. After hearing the arguments and after
appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the
learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the
NC: 2023:KHC:31182
CRL.RP No. 742 of 2014
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by
imposing a fine of Rs.4,05,000/- with a default sentence.
6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, the accused/revision petitioner
approached the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya, in
Crl.A.No.144/2012. The learned Sessions Judge after re-
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,
dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by this judgment of
conviction and order of sentence by both the Courts below,
the petitioner is before this Court by way of revision.
7. Neither the learned counsel for revision
petitioner/accused nor the learned counsel for
respondent/complainant represented the matter. Hence,
the Court has perused the records by exercising the power
under Section 403 of Cr.P.C.
8. It is the specific contention of the complainant
that accused has issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-
towards legally dischargeable debt as per Ex.P1. There is
no serious dispute of the fact that Ex.P2-cheque belongs
NC: 2023:KHC:31182
CRL.RP No. 742 of 2014
to the accused and it bears his signature. Hence, the initial
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is in favour
of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards the
legally enforceable debt. The accused has admitted receipt
of loan of Rs.2,50,000/- only from the complainant by
executing an agreement dated 02.01.2008 and issuance of
signed blank cheques as security. But to substantiate the
said defense accused has not produced any material
evidence. The accused is required to rebut the
presumption on the basis of preponderance of probability,
but he has not set up any possible defense. The
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is not
rebutted. Admittedly, the cheuqe belongs to the accused
and bears his signature.
9. Both the Courts below have appreciated the
oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and
have rightly convicted the accused by imposing a
reasonable sentence. No perversity or illegality is found in
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
NC: 2023:KHC:31182
CRL.RP No. 742 of 2014
by both the Courts below. No reasons are forthcoming for
interfering in the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by both the Courts below. Hence, the
revision petition stands dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of this petition IA No.1/2014
filed for Suspension of Sentence does not survive for
consideration. Hence, the said application stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
