Smt. Lailaja vs Shri. D. R. Ramachandra Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 1420 Kant

                                             -1-

                                                     CRL.RP No. 1004 of 2018



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                           BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                 CRL.R.P. NO. 1004 OF 2018
                BETWEEN:
                SMT. LAILAJA
                W/O BALAN
                AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                R/AT NO.90/1, B
                PROPRIETOR BLV FABRICATORS
                NARAYANAPURA
                WHITEFIELD ROAD
                DOORAVANINAGAR POST
                BANGALORE - 560 016.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI K.R. NAGARAJA, ADV., FOR
Digitally           SRI VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADV.)
signed by B A
KRISHNA
KUMAR           AND:
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka       SHRI. D.R. RAMACHANDRA REDDY
                S/O LATE RAMAPPA
                AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
                R/AT NO.5, "SURABHI"
                2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
                SULTANPALYA, R.T. NAGAR
                BANGALORE - 560 032.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SRI C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY., ADV.)

                      THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 20.07.2018,
                PASSED BY THE 66TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
                JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-67) IN CRL.A.NO.812/2017 AND ALSO
                THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE 20TH ACMM, AT BANGALORE DATED
                04.05.2017, IN C.C.NO.20080/2012 UNDER SECTION 265 OF CR.PC
                CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE ACCUSED OFFENCES P/U/S
                138 OF THE N.I ACT AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE
                COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
                PETITION.
                    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
                COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                           -2-

                                                 CRL.RP No. 1004 of 2018



                                    ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed against the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

04.05.2017 passed by the XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.20080/2012 and the

judgment and order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the LXVI

Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in

Crl.A.No.812/2017.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also

perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records

that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this

petition are, the petitioner herein had issued a cheque bearing

No.38615 dated 25.03.2012 for a sum of Rs.8,60,000/- drawn

on Canara Bank, SME Branch, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru,

towards arrears of rent in respect of the premises which was

admittedly taken on lease by the petitioner. The said cheque on

presentation by the respondent/complainant was dishonoured

with the bankers endorsement 'exceeds arrangement'. On

receipt of the bankers memo, the respondent had issued a

statutory notice to the petitioner which was not claimed by the

CRL.RP No. 1004 of 2018

petitioner. Thereafter, a private complaint was filed by the

respondent before the jurisdictional Magistrate and after

service of notice in the said proceedings, the petitioner had

appeared before the Court and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant had

examined himself as PW-1 and got marked nine documents as

Exs.P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the defence, accused no.2 was

examined as DW-1 and the statement of account was marked

as Ex.D-1. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments

addressed on both sides, by its judgment and order dated

04.05.2017 convicted the petitioner for the offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the

Act') and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs.9,10,000/- and in

default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three

months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of

conviction, the petitioner had preferred Crl.A.No.812/2017

which was dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and

order dated 20.07.2018. It is under this factual background,

the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after

issuance of the legal notice, the petitioner had paid the amount

CRL.RP No. 1004 of 2018

of Rs.8,60,000/- on three different dates. He submits that the

amount of Rs.5 lakhs was paid through RTGS on 27.04.2013

and thereafter on two dates, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and

Rs.1,60,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the respondent

towards the amount due under the cheque in question. He

submits that the courts below have failed to appreciate this

aspect of the matter and erred in convicting the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has

argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and has

prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed

on both sides and also perused the material available on

record.

8. The issuance of cheque, signature found in the cheque

and also the contents of the cheque are admitted by the

petitioner. Therefore, there is a presumption against the

petitioner under Section 139 of the Act which was required to

be rebutted by her before the Trial Court.

9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after service

of notice, the entire amount of Rs.8,60,000/- covered under

CRL.RP No. 1004 of 2018

the cheque in question was paid to the respondent on three

different dates. The material on record would go to show that

the monthly rent payable by the petitioner to the respondent

was Rs.40,000/-. She has admitted during the course of her

evidence that the amount paid by her after service of legal

notice was towards arrears of rent for the period from March

2012 onwards. The cheque in question was issued towards

areas of rent that was due prior to March 2012. The petitioner

has not produced any material to show that the amount paid by

her after service of statutory notice on her was towards arrears

of rent for the period prior to March 2012. Further, before the

Trial Court, the petitioner has not produced any material in

support of her contention that after issuance of the legal notice,

she had paid a sum of Rs.8,60,000/- to the respondent. By

taking a defence that she has paid the entire amount due to the

respondent which was covered under the cheque in question,

petitioner has admitted her liability. Ex.D-1 only shows that an

amount of Rs.5 lakhs was transferred by the petitioner to the

respondent after issuance of notice and during the course of

cross-examination, she has stated that the said amount was

paid by her towards rent due from March 2012 onwards.

CRL.RP No. 1004 of 2018

10. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, have recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioner

has failed to rebut the presumption which is against her and on

the other hand, the respondent had proved the case against

the petitioner and accordingly have convicted the petitioner for

the offence under Section 138 of the Act. I find no illegality or

irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction

passed by the courts below and the same does not call for

interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

KK