Karnataka High Court
Ra Muniyappa vs S N Narendra Babu on 25 July, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
RA. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
R/A DOOR NO. 267/3
NEAR KRISHNAREDDY BAR
DURGA MOULLA
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARTHIK YADAV.U FOR
SRI.VENKATA REDDY S. K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
S.N. NARENDRA BABU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O C. S. NARAYANASWAMY
R/AT SABEENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA
TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUBASH REDDY V. AND
SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATES)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 21.02.2013, PASSED IN C. C. NO.
548/2008 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA,
AND JUDGMENT, DATED 10.10.2014, PASSED IN CRL.A.NO. 39/2013
BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, BY
ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE COMPLAINT AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSESED/PETITIONER OF THE
CHARGE LEVELED AGAINST HIM, IN CC NO.548/2008, ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 09.06.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 21.02.2013 in C.C.No.548/2008 on the
file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,
Chikkaballapur and its confirmation judgment and order dated
10.10.2014 in Crl.A.No.39/2013 on the file of the Court of
Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapur, has
filed this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent
findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner /
accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act').
2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court
and appellant before the Appellate Court.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. It is the case of the complainant that, the petitioner
herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,58,038/- for his business,
legal necessities and family benefit. It is stated that, at the
time of borrowing the loan, the petitioner herein had issued a
cheque bearing No.351374 dated 16.5.2008 of ING Vysya
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
Bank, Chickballapur Branch. When it was presented for
encashment, the same came to be dishonoured with a shara
"funds insufficient". A complaint was filed after following the
due process.
4. To prove his case, the complainant / respondent
herein examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 9 documents
namely Exhibits P1 to P9. On the other hand, the accused /
petitioner herein examined himself as DW.1 and also examined
one more witness on his behalf as DW.2 and got marked 6
documents namely Exhibits D1 to D6. Both the Courts
concurrently held that, the petitioner is found guilty of the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
5. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner and
imposed to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/-, in default of the same,
he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein
preferred an appeal and the appeal came to be dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this
revision petition.
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
6. Heard Shri Karthik Yadav.U, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Shri Venkata Reddy S K, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Shri Subash Reddy V and Shri V Anand,
learned counsels for the respondent.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the Trial Court grossly erred in holding that the
cheque in question was issued for discharge of legally
enforceable debt or liability and convicted the petitioner which
is erroneous and unsustainable.
8. It is further submitted that, the Trial Court ignored
in considering the Ex.D1 document properly and also evidence
of DW.2 and recorded the conviction, which appears to be
erroneous and illegal and requires to be set aside. It is further
submitted that, the notice was not served on the petitioner and
the Courts below failed to appreciate the document Ex.D1
properly and passed the impugned judgment which requires to
be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently justified the concurrent findings and submits that,
the issuance of the cheque was not disputed and the defence of
the petitioner herein that, he had issued a blank cheque as a
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
security for appointing the respondent / complainant as a
Distributor of the Company where the petitioner was working
as a Sales Manager.
10. It is further submitted that, since the ingredients of
Section 138 of NI Act have been proved properly by the
respondent, the Courts below raised the presumption validly
and convicted the petitioner, which is appropriate and
interference with the well reasoned orders may not be
warranted. Having said thus, learned counsel for the
respondent prays to dismiss the petition.
11. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
judgments of the Courts below, the points which arise for my
consideration are:
i) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by
both the Courts below in convicting the petitioner
for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act are
sustainable?
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
ii) Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings
recorded by both the Courts below for conviction?
12. This Court being a Revisional Court, having regard
to the scope and ambit envisaged to appreciate the facts and
law, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence
and also the law, to ascertain as to whether any illegality or
perversity or error committed by the Courts below in recording
the conviction.
13. It is the main contention of the petitioner in this
case that, Exhibits D1 and D2 and evidence of DW.2 have not
been considered by the Courts below. On perusal of Ex.D1, it
appears that, it is an agreement stated to have been signed by
the complainant while he was appointed as a Distributor for the
Company, wherein the petitioner and two others were working
as Sales Officers. When it was confronted to the witness, he
has admitted the signature, however, denied the contents
thereof. However, it is relevant to refer para No.5 in the
middle, which indicates that,
"For promoting the business, on the desire of the
distributor, Company issued a cheque of
Mr.R.Muniappa, S/o. Late Sri Shunti Ramaiah,
who is the Sales Officer of the company to the
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
Bangalore rural division, bearing blank signed
cheque number 351374 of ING Vysya Bank of
Chickballapura branch as a security."
14. It is an admitted fact that, the respondent was
working as a Distributor of Advent Biotechnologies Company
and it is further admitted that, he was doing some transaction
with the said Company. PW.1 admitted the agreement Ex.D1
and signature in the said document. Once the said document is
admitted, contents thereof, as stated in para 5, should have
been considered by the Courts below before arriving at a
conclusion that, there was a legally enforceable debt or liability
existed between the petitioner and the respondent.
15. The respondent / complainant failed to establish
that, there was an existing debt or liability between the
respondent and the petitioner. In spite of the same, the Courts
below failed to appreciate the evidence and the documents
properly, hence, the judgments of conviction require to be set
aside.
16. As regards the other document Ex.D2 is concerned,
the shara of RPAD (Ex.P9) indicates that, addressee not found
during the time when the Postman had been to the address.
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
Even though the petitioner herein produced certain documents
to show that he was residing in different address, the Courts
below have failed to notice the same, hence, it appears that,
the petitioner has successfully proved that, notice was not
served.
17. On overall consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that the complainant /
respondent failed to establish the transaction and legally
enforceable debt or liability between himself and the petitioner
herein. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to pay the amount
as mentioned in the cheque.
18. In the light of the observations made above, the
points which arose for my consideration are answered as
under:-
Point No.(i) - "Negative"
Point No.(ii) - "Affirmative"
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, dated 21.02.2013 passed in
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2014
C.C.No.548/2008 by the Court of the Additional
Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chikkaballapur and
judgment and order dated 10.10.2014 passed in
Crl.A.No.39/2013 on the file of the Court of
Principal District and Sessions Judge at
Chikkaballapur are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
(v) The Trial Court is directed to refund the amount,
if any, deposited by the petitioner to the
petitioner / accused, on proper identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS
