Karnataka High Court
Sri. R. Kantharaja vs Sri. P. Nagaraja on 9 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 461 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. R. KANTHARAJA
S/O. RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PARASHURAMPURA VILLAGE,
NEAR SARVODAYA COLLEGE,
PAVAGADA ROAD,
CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. P. NAGARAJA
S/O. PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST & CONTRACTOR,
RESIDENT OF SIDESHWARANADURGA,
PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI,
Digitally
signed by CHALLAKERE TALKUK,
SUMA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 536.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT (BY SRI. H.G.SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA, IN CRL.A.NO.64/2018 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the concurrent judgment of
conviction and sentencing the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act, 1881' for short) and to
pay a fine of Rs.4,55,000/-.
2. The facts as stated in brief are that the respondent
and the petitioner were known to each other and that, on the
request of the petitioner, the respondent had advanced a loan
of Rs.4,50,000/-. The petitioner had passed on a cheque dated
20.07.2015 towards the repayment of the said loan. However,
the cheque on presentation was dishonoured as the petitioner
had stopped the payment of the cheque on 08.09.2015. The
respondent caused a notice of demand, which was not complied
by the petitioner, which compelled the respondent to initiate
proceedings for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 138
of NI Act, 1881. The sworn statement of the petitioner was
recorded and the case was registered as C.C.No.1075/2015.
The petitioner pleaded not guilty and prayed that he be tried.
The respondent was examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019
P5. Later, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner did not enter the
witness box and did not produce any material documents.
Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
held that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner
towards discharge of a lawful debt and that the petitioner had
committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act,
1881 in view of the dishonour of the cheque. The trial Court
therefore convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Rs.4,55,000/-, of which, Rs.4,50,000/- was ordered to be paid
as compensation to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.64/2018, which too was
dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition
is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the dispute between the parties was referred to Mediation,
whereat the parties have resolved to settle the dispute at a
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019
sum of Rs.3,15,000/-. Learned counsel therefore contended
that the petitioner be granted adequate time to pay
Rs.3,15,000/-. He also submits that during the pendency of the
suit, he had deposited a sum of Rs.95,000/- before the trial
Court, which was acknowledged by the respondent and that he
had deposited a sum of Rs.80,000/- before the Appellate Court.
He therefore submits that the amount paid by the petitioner
before the trial Court and the Appellate Court was not
considered.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand submitted that though the parties had settled the dispute
at Rs.3,15,000/-, the petitioner was not keen to abide by the
settlement and therefore, the respondent is no longer
interested to stick to the said settlement. He however
contended that there is no evidence to establish that the
petitioner had either paid up the amount payable under the
cheque in question. He contended that the petitioner did not
establish that the cheque in question was not issued towards
the discharge of a lawful debt.
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019
6. I have considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is evident from the statement under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner did not choose to set out his
defense. He also did not enter the witness box to establish any
of his contention that the cheque in question was not issued
towards discharge of a lawful debt.
8. In that view of the matter, the trial Court and the
Appellate Court have rightly considered the evidence on record
and have held that the petitioner committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and had rightly
sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.4,55,000/-. There is
no error either in the appreciation of evidence or the application
of law to the facts and circumstances of this case warranting
interference under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
9. Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and
dismissed.
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2019
The trial Court may consider the payments made before it
as well as before the Appellate Court, while executing the order
of sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/-
