Karnataka High Court
H M Shylesh Kumar vs M Renukappa on 10 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1376 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1376 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
H.M. SHYLESH KUMAR
S/O MASHIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
GONITUMKUR VILLAGE AND POST,
DABBEGHATTA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU-562227
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR P., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.V. PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M. RENUKAPPA
S/O MUDALAGIRI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KALKERE VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by KODAGIHALLI POST,
SUMA TURUVEKERE TALUK,
Location:
HIGH COURT TUMKURU-562227.
OF
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED
31.12.2016 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.12/2016 PASSED BY THE
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1376 of 2018
HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT TURUVEKERE AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 14.09.2018 IN
CRL.A.NO.10004/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR, AND BE PLEASED TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the Judgment of conviction
and the consequent order of sentence passed by the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC., Turuvekere, (for short, 'the Trial Court')
dated 31.12.2016 in Criminal Case No.12/2016. The petitioner
has also challenged the Judgment passed by the Court of V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, (for short, 'the
Appellate Court') dated 14.09.2018 in Criminal Appeal
No.10004/2017 by which the Judgment of the Trial Court was
upheld.
2. The private complaint lodged by the respondent
herein before the Trial Court discloses that the petitioner herein
had borrowed a loan of Rs.40,000/- on 20.08.2013 and a sum
of Rs.55,000/- on 12.10.2013 through two separate cheques
CRL.RP No. 1376 of 2018
drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere branch for the
purpose of purchasing an autorickshaw. Later, he returned the
hand loan by issuing a cheque bearing No.161350 dated
17.06.2014 (henceforth referred to as 'the cheque in question')
drawn on Vijaya Bank, Turuvekere, for a sum of Rs.95,000/-.
However, when the cheque was presented for encashment on
17.06.2014, it was returned unpaid on 19.06.2014 with the
endorsement "Drawer's Signature differs from specimen
signature", "insufficient Funds" and "Account inactive". The
respondent therefore caused a notice of demand on 28.06.2014
to the petitioner, which was duly served. However, the
petitioner neither replied to the notice nor paid up the amount
demanded in the notice. This prompted the respondent to
initiate prosecution against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act'). The sworn statement of
the respondent was recorded and C.C. No.556/2014, (later re-
numbered as C.C. No.12/2016) was registered and process was
issued to the petitioner.
CRL.RP No. 1376 of 2018
3. The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The respondent was examined as PW.1 and he
marked documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The petitioner was
examined as DW.1, but he did not produce any document in his
defence.
5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court held that the respondent herein had paid a sum of
Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner herein through a cheque dated
20.08.2013 drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere
Branch, and a sum of Rs.55,000/- on 12.10.2013 by a cheque
drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere Branch. Ex.P9
was the statement of accounts in respect of the account of the
respondent herein maintained at the State Bank of Mysore,
Turuvekere Branch, which indicates that sum of Rs.40,000/-
and Rs.55,000/- were paid to the petitioner herein on
20.08.2013 and 12.10.2013 respectively.
6. The cheque in question was issued from the account
of the petitioner herein and the signatures on the said cheque
CRL.RP No. 1376 of 2018
were not disputed. Based on the above, the Trial Court held
that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner to the
respondent towards discharge of a lawful debt and that in view
of its dishonour, the petitioner herein had committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and thus,
convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, out of which Rs.95,000/- was
ordered to be paid to the respondent herein as compensation
and Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to the State as fine.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred
Criminal Appeal No.10004/2017 before the Appellate Court
which was dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision
petition is filed.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the cheque in question was not drawn towards repayment
of any debt. He also submitted that the cheque at Ex.P1 was
filled up by the respondent himself and therefore, was not duly
drawn by the petitioner. He also contended that the dishonour
CRL.RP No. 1376 of 2018
of the cheque on the ground that the signature of the petitioner
differed from his specimen signature and that the account was
not active did not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the
N.I. Act which aspect was not considered by the Trial Court.
9. I have considered the contentions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the records of the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court.
10. It is seen from the records that a sum of
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.55,000/- was paid by the respondent to the
petitioner on 20.08.2013 and 12.10.2013 respectively through
two separate cheques drawn on State Bank of Mysore,
Turuvekere branch. This is not disputed by the petitioner. On
the contrary, it was suggested that the cheque in question was
given as security for a hand loan transaction and that the
petitioner had repaid the hand loan, but the respondent had not
returned the cheque. Therefore, signature of the petitioner on
the cheque is not in dispute. The Trial Court has considered
the above evidence as well as the statement of account (Ex.P9)
in respect of the account of the respondent maintained at State
CRL.RP No. 1376 of 2018
Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere Branch, which reflected the
transactions between the parties and held that the petitioner
herein had committed an offence punishable under Section 138
of the N.I. Act. In the course of cross-examination of the
petitioner herein as DW.1, he did admit the following:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 20-08-2013 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 12-10-2013 UÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ
ZÉPï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀ¤AzÀ vÀ¯Á 40 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ
55 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
11. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court were justified in convicting the
petitioner herein for an offence punishable under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act. There is no material irregularity in the appreciation
of the evidence or the application of law by both the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court warranting interference under Section
397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, this
revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
12. Any amount in deposit is ordered to be released to
the respondent.
CRL.RP No. 1376 of 2018
The Registry is directed to forthwith return the records to
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMA
