Sri Shrinivas N vs Mr. G R Prabhakar Rao
2023 Latest Caselaw 1707 Kant

                                        -1-
                                                 CRL.RP No. 71 of 2023




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 71 OF 2023
              BETWEEN:

              SRI SHRINIVAS N
              S/O PADMANABHA SAPALYA
              AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
              R/AT NATI HOUSE,
              NARIKOMBU POST AND VILLAGE,
              BANTWAL TALUK
              DK DISTRICT -575022
                                                         ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY.T FOR
              SRI ASHOK KUMAR.K, ADVOCATES)

              AND:

              MR. G R PRABHAKAR RAO
Digitally     S/O LATE G S RANGANNA
signed by R   AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
MANJUNATHA
Location:     R/AT SRIRAKSHA, SHIVANAGARA
HIGH COURT    MOODUSHEDDE
OF
KARNATAKA     MANGALURU
              DK DISTRICT -575022
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
              (BY SMT. RASHMI K.,ADVOCATE)

                   THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
              TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
              DATED 23.08.2021 MADE IN C.C.NO.663/2016 BY THE COURT
              OF JMFC (V COURT) MANGALURU D.K., AND THE JUDGMENT
              AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2022 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.117/2021
                                      -2-
                                               CRL.RP No. 71 of 2023




BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE
WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

1. Heard Sri Harish Bandary for Ashok Kumar Shetty,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi K., learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. Present revision petition is filed challenging the

order passed in C.C.No.663/2016 whereby the revision

petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine of

Rs.3,05,000/- which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.117/2021 by

order dated 31.10.2022.

3. Facts in brief for disposal of the present petition are

as under:

Revision petitioner is the accused who faced the

prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a dishonor of cheque

in C.C.No.663/2016.

CRL.RP No. 71 of 2023

4. The learned Trial Magistrate after following

necessary procedure, took cognizance of the offence under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and recorded the

plea, wherein the accused pleaded not guilty.

5. In order to establish the case of the complainant,

complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and one witness

Ashok Hegde as P.W.2. As against the same, there was no

contra evidence placed on record by the accused. The

complainant relied on seven documentary evidence comprising

of dishonor cheque, bank endorsement, office copy of legal

notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, agreement,

bank pass book.

6. After conclusion of recording of evidence, learned

Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the incriminating

circumstances, but did not offer his defence either by

examining himself nor producing written documents as is

contemplated under Section 313 (3) Cr.P.C., and thereafter

learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused as aforesaid.

CRL.RP No. 71 of 2023

7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an

appeal to the District Court in Crl.A.No.117/2021.

8. Learned Trial Judge, after securing the records,

hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. In other words,

there is a factual finding that Ex.P.1 cheque is issued for legally

recoverable debt under Ex.P.6 agreement and the same was

dishonored as is evidenced from Ex.P.3 legal notice which was

duly served on the accused and thereby no reply whatsoever

nor any defence evidence. Accordingly, learned Trial Appellate

Judge did not find any ground whatsoever to interfere with the

finding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate.

9. Having regard to the scope of the Revision Petition

and in the light of the grounds urged in the revision petition,

this Court perused the material on record meticulously in the

light of arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.

10. On such perusal, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the respondent/complainant enjoys the

presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act

and the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant

CRL.RP No. 71 of 2023

by examining himself and also a witness and relying upon

seven documentary evidence.

11. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed by

the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned

Trial Magistrate and learned First Appellate Judge have rightly

convicted the accused in the impugned judgment.

12. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation

whatsoever in holding that the impugned judgments are legally

sound and based on the factual aspects of the matter.

Accordingly, following order is passed.

ORDER

Revision Petition is meritless. As such,

admission is declined for further consideration.

Revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MR