Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath Poojary vs Kateel Durgaparameshwari ... on 9 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 740 of 2016
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. 740 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATH POOJARY
S/O MAHABALA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT "SRI. MAHAGIRI NILAYA"
Digitally signed AAJRI TENKA BAIL
by SUMA KUNDAPURA TALUK
Location:
HIGH COURT UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.
OF
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KATEEL DURGAPARAMESHWARI FINANCE
CORPORATION (R), DODDANNAGUDDE
MANOLIGUJJI, UDUPI TLAUK
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
S.D.SENTHIL KUMAR @ S.KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O DORAISWAMY
R/AT DOOR NO.4-16A2
NARAYANA PRASAD HOUSE
NEAR CHOCOLATE FACTORY
KOLAMBE END, KOLAMBE 76
BADAGABETTU VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT -SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
CRL.RP No. 740 of 2016
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
RECORDED ON 04.03.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI, IN CRL.A.NO.36/2015 AND ALLOW
THE CRL.A.NO.36/2015 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 29.05.2015 PASSED BY
THE C/C III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI IN
C.C.NO.529/2012.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the Judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.05.2015
passed by C/C III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi,
in C.C.No.529/2012 sentencing him for an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The petitioner has also assailed the
Judgment dated 04.03.2016 passed by the Sessions Court
in Criminal Appeal No.36/2015.
2. The short facts as stated by the complainant are
that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.80,000/- from
the respondent and had repaid a sum of Rs.16,000/-. In
CRL.RP No. 740 of 2016
respect of the balance amount of Rs.64,000/- he had
passed on a cheque bearing No.060642 dated 13.10.2011
drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, Udupi Branch, Udupi.
This cheque when presented for encashment was
dishonoured for the reason `Account closed'.
3. Respondent issued notice of demand. However
the petitioner failed to pay the amount in time which
compelled the respondent to file a complaint alleging an
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The sworn statement of the respondent
was recorded and C.C.No.529/2012 was registered. After
process was served on the petitioner, he appeared and
pleaded not guilty and prayed that he be tried.
Respondent was examined as PW-1 and Exhibits P-1 to P-
12 were marked. The statement of the petitioner was
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, he did
not lead any evidence. Based on oral and documentary
evidence, trial court held that cheque in question was
CRL.RP No. 740 of 2016
issued in discharge of lawful debt and that the dishonour
of cheque resulted in an offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, convicted
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to
pay fine of Rs.70,400/- of which a sum of Rs.69,400/- was
ordered to be paid as compensation to the respondent. An
appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition
is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
petitioner has deposited Rs.40,000/- and what remains is
only Rs.24,000/-. He prays that petitioner be granted four
months time to pay the said amount. However, he
contends that the notice of demand issued by the
respondent was not served upon the petitioner and
therefore both the courts committed an error in not
appreciating this contention.
CRL.RP No. 740 of 2016
5. Respondent though served, is not represented.
6. A Perusal of the Judgment of trial court and
appellate court points to the fact that the petitioner had
issued the cheque in question for discharge of a debt due
to the respondent. The accused did not enter the witness
box and did not establish that the address mentioned in
the cause title was not the one where he was residing. In
that view of the matter, trial court and appellate court
were justified in convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
7. In view of the above, revision petition lacks
merit and the same is dismissed.
8. Any amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the trial court, and the same shall be
released to the respondent.
CRL.RP No. 740 of 2016
9. However, the petitioner is granted one month
time to pay up the balance fine amount before the trial
court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBN
