Mr. Kumata Ramaiah vs Smt. Kumari P
2023 Latest Caselaw 6576 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                        NC: 2023:KHC:33790
                                                   CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2015




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                        BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1343 OF 2015
                BETWEEN:

                MR. KUMATA RAMAIAH,
                S/O RAMASINGAIAH,
                AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                C/O CHANDRA
                #801/1, SRS COLLEGE ROAD,
                PEENYA 2ND BLOCK,
                BENGALURU-560 058.
                KUMATA RAMAIAH,
                AND ALSO WORKING AS ATTENDER,
                ROOM NO.50, KIDWAI INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY,
                DR. MARIGOWDA ROAD,
                BANGALORE-560 029.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI. C.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE(ABSENT))
                AND:

                SMT. KUMARI .P,
Digitally       W/O A.T.SRINIVAS,
signed by       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RENUKAMBA       RESIDING AT #129,
KG              THIGALARAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
Location:       17TH "A" CROSS,
High Court of   RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,
Karnataka       PEENYA 2ND STAGE, 2ND BLOCK,
                BENGALURU-560 058.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SRI. A. KUMARAVEL, ADVOCATE)
                     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
                PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
                ORDER DATED 07.11.2015 PASSED BY THE LI ADDL. CITY
                CIVIL AND S.J., (CCH-52), BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.374/2014
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC:33790
                                    CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2015




AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 26.03.2014 PASSED BY THE XIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE
IN C.C.NO.198/2011.

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

This revision is filed by the accused under Section

397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the XIII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in

C.C.No.198/2011 dated 26.03.2014 and confirmed by the

LI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in

Crl.A.No.374/2014, vide judgment dated 07.11.2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original ranks occupied by them

before the trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

as under:

The complainant and accused are well acquainted

with each other. The accused is the friend of husband of

the complainant and both her husband and accused were

NC: 2023:KHC:33790 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2015

working in Kidwai Institute of Oncology Extension CTR,

Bangalore. It is alleged that accused has availed a hand

loan of Rs.80,000/- on 08.05.2010 from the complainant

for his domestic needs, assuring to repay the same within

a period of two months. When the complainant has sought

for repayment of the said amount after two months,

accused has issued a cheque as per Ex.P1 and when the

said cheque was presented for encashment, it was

returned for insufficient of funds. Hence, the complainant

has lodged a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') against the

accused.

4. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of

the offence and issued process against the accused. The

accused has appeared through his counsel and was

enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers have been

furnished to the learned counsel for the accused. The plea

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is framed against the

accused and the same is read over and explained to the

NC: 2023:KHC:33790 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2015

accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the

complainant was got examined herself as PW1 and placed

reliance on 8 documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. After

conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the

statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was

recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating

evidence appearing against him in the case of the

complainant. The case of the accused is of total denial.

The accused was got examined himself as DW1, but he did

not chose to produce any oral or documentary evidence in

support of his defence.

6. After having heard the arguments and after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the

learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by

imposing fine of Rs.82,000/- with a default sentence.

Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order

NC: 2023:KHC:33790 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2015

of sentence, the accused has approached LI Additional City

Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Crl.A.No.374/2014.

     7.    The     learned           Sessions      Judge     after

re-appreciating   the   oral   and      documentary     evidence,

dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned

Magistrate. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings,

the accused is before this court.

8. In spite of granting sufficient opportunities,

there is no representation on behalf of the revision

petitioner all along. Though the matter is pending since

2015, the revision petitioner has not taken any pain to

prosecute the matter.

9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for respondent and perused the records by

exercising the revisional powers vested in the Court with

reference to grounds urged in the petition.

NC: 2023:KHC:33790 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2015

10. It is the contention of the complainant that the

accused being acquainted with her has availed a hand loan

of Rs.80,000/- from her on 08.05.2010 assuring to repay

the same within two months and on demand, he issued a

cheque dated 08.07.2010 and when the same was

presented, it was bounced for insufficient of funds.

11. The defene of the accused is of total denial. He

has not even admitted his signature on the cheuqe.

However, he has not disputed the fact that cheque belongs

to him. Interestingly, he has denied his signature on the

plea, the signature on the vakalath and other documents

including summons served by him. This conduct of the

part of the accused clearly discloses that he has not

approached the Court with clean hands.

12. In the cross-examination, accused has admitted

that he use to sign both in Kannada and English. He

admits that as per his convenience, he used to sign and he

further admits that he has not given both Kannada and

English signatures at the time of account opening form.

NC: 2023:KHC:33790 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2015

However, he has not given any explanation how the

cheque belonging to his account is missing from his

custody and found in possession of the complainant. There

is absolutely no explanation offered by the accused in this

regard.

13. Apart from that, the accused has also denied

service of legal notice. However, in the cross-examination,

he admits that address shown in the complaint is

pertaining to his residence and his service is proper as

notice was issued to the same address. Hence, it is evident

that notice was issued to the proper address and it is for

the accused to explain how he missed the legal notice

issued to him. He is not prepared to give any explanation

and he is coming forward only to deny everything,

including his signatures made before this Court which

clearly disclose his mentality and to what extent he can go

to dispute the transaction.

14. Looking to these facts and circumstances, both

the Courts below have rightly appreciated the oral and

NC: 2023:KHC:33790 CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2015

documentary evidence and convicted the accused. No

illegality or infirmity is forthcoming in the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by both the

Courts below so as to call for any interference by this

Court. Hence, the revision petition being devoid of any

merits, does not survive for consideration and needs to be

rejected. Accordingly, the revision petition stands

rejected.

The amount in deposit made by the accused/

revision petitioner, if any, shall be paid to the

complainant/respondent herein.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS