Sri.S.R.Krishnamurthy Rao vs Ramanjaneya
2023 Latest Caselaw 7411 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:38492
                                                       CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                              BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 554 OF 2016

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI S.R. KRISHNAMURTHY RAO
                         S/O LATE S.B.RAMARAO
                         AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

                   2.    SMT. KAVERI
                         W/O S.R.KRISHNAMURTHY RAO
                         AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

                         BOTH ARE R/AT NO.873,
                         1ST 'C' MAIN ROAD,
                         NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE,
                         BANGALORE-560 072.
                                                                 ...PETITIONERS

Digitally signed
                                  (BY SRI ARUN BHAT, ADVOCATE)
by SHARANYA T      AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           1.    RAMANJANEYA
KARNATAKA
                         S/O LATE G.NARAYANAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                         R/AT NO.36, 12TH 'B' CROSS,
                         2ND MAIN ROAD, A.D.HALLI,
                         BANGALORE-560 072.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENT

                             (BY SRI V.VISHWANATH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

                          THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF
                   CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2016
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2023:KHC:38492
                                           CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016




IN CRL.A.NO.700/2014, PASSED BY THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, IN CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE XIII ACMM,
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.20116/2011 DATED 16.06.2014, BY
ALLOWING THIS R.P., FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.


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


                               ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision petition is filed against the order of

conviction passed in C.C.No.20116/2011, wherein the Trial

Court comes to the conclusion that cheque which has been

issued has been admitted and the defence which has been

taken by the petitioners that the complainant has forcibly taken

the signature has not been proved and convicted the

petitioners to pay Rs.5,05,000/- and out of that, Rs.5,00,000/-

has to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction, an

appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.700/2014. The Appellate Court

formulated the points whether the Trial Court has committed

NC: 2023:KHC:38492 CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016

any error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on

record, whether the Trial Court has committed any error in

holding that complainant has proved that accused for discharge

of legality enforceable debt issued cheque at Ex.P1 and whether

the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence requires

interference and all the points formulated are answered as

'negative' and concurred with the finding of the Trial Court.

Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would

vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider the

material available on record while appreciating both oral and

documentary evidence and hurriedly passed the judgment of

conviction and dismissed the appeal. It is also contended that

the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to understand

that the evidence of the petitioners is mandatory in the Trial

Court and the complainant has not proved the same and failed

to consider the answers elicited from the mouth of the

witnesses and also failed to consider the defence which has

been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to

notice of this Court that payment which has been made in

terms of the agreement has not been proved and inspite of the

NC: 2023:KHC:38492 CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016

same, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court committed an

error in relying upon the document of Ex.P1 and also the

endorsement made on Ex.P10(a) and committed an error.

Hence, it requires interference of this Court by exercising the

revisional jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the fact

that there was agreement of sale in respect of land which

belongs to petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2, who

happens to be the wife of the petitioner No.1 is also examined

before the Trial Court as D.W.2 and she also categorically

admitted that her husband entered into a agreement of sale

and cheque belongs to her. It is further contended that though

the petitioners took the contention that forcibly cheque was

taken and endorsement is obtained but, clearly admitted in the

evidence that no complaint is given either before the police or

before the Court or before any other authority for having taken

the cheque forcibly and the same has been appreciated by the

Trial Court and the Appellate Court and it does not require any

interference of this Court.

NC: 2023:KHC:38492 CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned counsel for the respondent, this revision

petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court

and the Appellate Court. The scope of the revision is very

limited and only if the order suffers from any illegality,

correctness and propriety of the order, under such

circumstances, the Court can interfere with the findings of the

Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

7. Having considered the grounds urged by the

learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel

for the respondent, the points that would arise for consideration

of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioners herein and whether the Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the same?

(2) Whether the judgment suffers from its legality, correctness and propriety of the order?

      (3)     What order?

                                            NC: 2023:KHC:38492
                                       CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016




Point Nos.(1) and (2)

8. Having perused the material available on record,

though the petitioners dispute the sale agreement, the same is

admitted by D.W.2, who is the petitioner No.2 before this Court

and her evidence is very clear that cheque belongs to her and

categorical admission is given in the evidence itself that her

husband is having a site bearing No.123 at Nagarabhavi and

there was agreement of sale in the year 2007 and cheque

belongs to her and signature also belongs to her. She also

categorically admits that signature found in Ex.P1(a) and

Ex.P10 are similar. When such admission is given with regard

to issuance of Ex.P1-cheque and the endorsement also clearly

discloses that sale agreement was cancelled, however in terms

of the agreement between the parties, the document of sale

deed was not executed and only refunded the advance money

by way of cheque in favour of other purchaser to the tune of

Rs.3,50,000/- and in respect of this complainant, cheque for

Rs.5,00,000/- was given. When the signature found in

Ex.P10(a) as well as Ex.P1(a) are admitted by P.W.1, the same

has been appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court

and when the cheque, signature on the cheque and the

NC: 2023:KHC:38492 CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016

endorsement is admitted, burden is on the petitioners to

disprove the case of the complainant. Hence, there is a

presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act and the said presumption has

to be rebutted, since the same is a rebuttable presumption and

no such rebuttal evidence is placed before the Trial Court.

9. Apart from that, though the petitioners took the

contention that signatures are obtained on Ex.P1(a) and

Ex.P10(a) forcibly, no complaint is given and the same is

admitted in the cross-examination of D.W.2, wherein she

categorically admits that no complaint was given either before

the police or before any Court or any other authority. When

such being the case, the very defence has not been

substantiated and this aspect has been considered by the Trial

Court and the Appellate Court.

10. The learned counsel also submits that in terms of

Ex.P10, the payment is totally amounting to Rs.3,27,000/- in

terms of cash and Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheque by the

complainant herein has not been established and the said

contention cannot be accepted since, D.W.2 i.e., the petitioner

NC: 2023:KHC:38492 CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016

No.2 categorically admitted the endorsement in Ex.P10(a),

wherein endorsement is made with regard to cancellation of

sale agreement and refund of earnest money by issuing the

cheque. When such endorsement is made in Ex.P10 which is

marked as Ex.P10(a), the very contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted since, the

signatures in both the document of Ex.P1 and Ex.P10(a) are

admitted as similar.

11. The material on record i.e., both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record establishes the fact

that there was sale transaction and agreement of sale was

entered into between the partiers in terms of Ex.P10 and

admitted the sale agreement and issuance of cheque and the

records also disclose that no reply was given to the notice

issued. When such materials are available on record, I do not

find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court

and the Appellate Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction

since, the judgment of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court

not suffers from its legality, correctness and propriety of the

order. Hence, no grounds are made out to allow the revision

NC: 2023:KHC:38492 CRL.RP No. 554 of 2016

petition. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(1) and (2) as

'negative'.

Point No.(3)

12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST