Karnataka High Court
Sri H L Narayana vs Smt Lakshmidevamma on 11 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 188 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.L. NARAYANA
S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHAIAH
52 YEARS,
R/O K. HOSAHALLI
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUKR DISTRICT - 572130.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAIRAJ.G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O LATE B. CHALUVAIAH
62 YEARS,
R/AT SIRIVARA HEBBUR HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101.
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by
SUMA (BY SRI. MAHANTESH T.S, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
KARNATAKA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
TUMKURU IN C.C.NO.4614/2016 ORDER DATED 26.07.2021
AND ALSO JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL
-2-
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, IN
CRL.A.NO.28/2021 DATED 07.12.2021 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the concurrent judgment of
conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and the
order sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- failing
which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months.
2. The respondent claimed that the petitioner had
availed hand loan of Rs.75,000/- and had handed over a post
dated cheque for Rs.75,000/- on 18.10.2012. He claimed that
the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and
he issued a notice of demand which was served on the
petitioner. However, he failed to reply or repay the amount
which compelled him to initiate prosecution of the petitioner for
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and prayed
that he be tried. The respondent was examined as PW-1 and
she marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The statement of the petitioner
under Section 313 of CR.PC was recorded. He thereafter led his
defence evidence as DW-1 and marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
Based on oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held
that the petitioner had issued the cheque in question for the
discharge of a lawful debt and therefore held that the
petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. In view of the
dishonour of the cheque due to insufficient funds, if convicted
the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to pay
fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an
appeal before the sessions court which was dismissed,
following which the present petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the cheque in question was given to the brother of the
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
petitioner which was misused by the respondent. He contended
that the daughter of the respondent had filed OS.No.141/2012
for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the same was decreed.
He therefore contended that the respondent has misused the
cheque in question to lay an unlawful claim.
5. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the petitioner did not state in his 313 statement
about his defence. He also contended that petitioner did not
examine his brother to demonstrate the fact that the cheque in
question was given to his brother and the same was misused
by the petitioner. He therefore contended that the trial Court
and the appellate Court was justified in convicting the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent.
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
7. The petitioner has alleged that the cheques in
question was given to his brother to be retained as security for
a transaction between them and that the said cheque was
misused by the petitioner herein to launch a false prosecution
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The
petitioner had failed to respond to the notice of demand issued
by the petitioner. He also did not set out his defence in his
statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC. He also did not examine
his brother to establish that the cheque in question was given
to him as security for a different transaction. The fact that the
cheque in question was drawn from the account of the
petitioner and that the signature found on the said cheque
belonged to the petitioner, makes it probable that the
petitioner and the respondent had a transaction in respect of
which, the present cheque was issued. There is no contra
evidence to doubt the case of the respondent.
8. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has
rightly assessed the evidence and rightly concluded that the
petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under Section
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2022
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no material
irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted or in
appreciation of the evidence of the application of law to the
facts and circumstances of this case, warranting interference
by this Court under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.PC.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed. Any amount in deposit is ordered to be released to
the respondent. The petitioner is granted two months time to
pay the balance amount, failing which, the order of sentence
passed by the trial Court shall be executed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
