Karnataka High Court
R S Venkataraman vs Venkataramana Chemicals on 4 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 776 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 776 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1. R.S. VENKATARAMAN
S/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY
NO.40, 1ST CROSS,
DOCTORS COLONY,
BYRAPA LAYOUT, WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066
2. KEMPS CITY AGRO EXPORTS LIMITED
NO.811/2B, 3B,
AGGONDAPALLY VILLAGE,
ACHETTIPALLY POST,
HOSUR, DENKANIKOTTAI,
TAMILNADU-651 110
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. R.S. VENKATARAMAN
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
SUMA
Location: VENKATARAMANA CHEMICALS
HIGH
COURT OF NO.38, BHARATH COMPLEX,
KARNATAKA NO.175, A.S. CHAR STREET,
BANGALORE-560053.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA K.M., AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
-2-
CRL.RP No. 776 of 2009
DATED: 08.05.2006 PASSED BY THE XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE
CITY IN C.C.NO.38751/2002 AND CONFIRMED BY THE ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-IV, BANGALORE IN
CRL.A.NO. 981/2006 DATED: 16.09.2009. AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 08.05.2006 passed by the XXI
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (henceforth
referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.38751/2002,
which was confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and the
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - IV, Bangalore in
Crl.A.No.981/2006 have filed this revision petition.
2. The respondent herein initiated proceedings for
prosecution of the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth
referred to as 'N.I. Act' for short). The respondent contended
that it had supplied gherkins to the petitioners and that the
petitioners were liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and that
CRL.RP No. 776 of 2009
they had passed on a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-, which
when presented was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. A
notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner No.1 and
another Director of petitioner No.2 to pay the cheque amount
and thereafter, initiated proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.
Act.
3. The petitioners denied their liability and contended
that they were not liable for the amount demanded by the
respondent. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence held that the respondent had proved
that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of a
lawful debt and thus convicting the petitioners of an offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced them
to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/-. An appeal preferred therefrom
was also rejected.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision
petition is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- was paid before the First Appellate
CRL.RP No. 776 of 2009
Court and a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- is deposited before the Trial
Court and therefore, in all the petitioners have deposited a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/- and what remains is only a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- and he submitted that the petitioners are willing
to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as ordered by the Trial Court.
He further contended that the statutory notice under Section
138 of N.I. Act was not issued to the petitioner No.2, but was
issued to the petitioner No.1 and therefore, did not satisfy the
requirement under Section 138 of N.I. Act and hence, the
prosecution initiated by the respondent was not justified.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent
submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner No.1 and
another Director of the petitioner No.2 was duly served and
therefore, the petitioners were aware of their liability to the
respondent. She therefore, contended that the petitioners
cannot challenge the correctness of the judgment of conviction
on this ground. In so far as the offer made by the petitioners,
the learned Amicus Curiae, on instructions, submitted that the
petitioners have protracted the proceedings from the year 2009
CRL.RP No. 776 of 2009
before this Court and therefore, some amount of compensation
deserves to be granted to the respondent.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned
Amicus Curiae for the respondent.
8. The prescription of a notice under proviso (b) of
Section 138 of N.I. Act is designed to notify the drawer about
the dishonour of the cheque and to pay up the cheque amount
within thirty days. In the case on hand, the petitioners did not
dispute the fact that the notice issued by the respondent was
served upon them. They also do not deny that they were aware
of the dishonour of the cheque in question. In that view of the
matter, the petitioners cannot exploit a mere irregularity in
issuance of the notice to the petitioner No.1 and another
Director of the petitioner No.2 and contend that the notice was
not properly issued and therefore, the respondent had failed to
comply with the requirement of Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Therefore, the ground urged by the petitioners is liable to
rejected.
CRL.RP No. 776 of 2009
9. In so far as contention of the petitioners that they
have already paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and they are willing
to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioners must have paid
it to the respondent at the earliest point of time, rather than
waiting for nearly 13 years. Be that as it may, since the
respondent has not taken any steps to challenge the order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court, this Court cannot enhance
the sentence in the revision petition filed by the accused.
10. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds
made out by the petitioners in this revision petition. Hence, this
revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
11. The Trial Court shall take into account the amounts
paid by the petitioners before the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court while takings steps to execute the order of sentence.
12. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
records forthwith.
13. The receipts furnished by the learned counsel for
the petitioners for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- is
CRL.RP No. 776 of 2009
ordered to be returned to the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
The assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae is
appreciated and the same is placed on record. The fees of the
learned Amicus Curiae is fixed at a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only).
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
