Karnataka High Court
Sri Laxmipathi Naik vs Mr T R Prasanna on 3 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13684
CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020
C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 31 OF 2020
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 35 OF 2020
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 42 OF 2020
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 31 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI LAXMIPATHI NAIK
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT GOODS GUARD 'A' RAILWAY QUARTERS
R/O. 26/A, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HARIHAR - 577601
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T.,)
Digitally signed AND:
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HANUMANTHAPPA S.,
KARNATAKA DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1. SHANTHAMMA
W/O LAXMANA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE
AMARVATHI, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577601
2. TULASI BAI
W/O LATE HANUMANTHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13684
CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020
C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE
AMARVATHI, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577601
3. SHIVAKUMAR H.,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE
AMARVATHI, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577601
4. PRIYANKA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE
AMARVATHI, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577601
5. ABILASH
S/O LATE HANUMANTHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE
AMARVATHI, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577601
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 30.06.2015 MADE IN C.C.NO.911/2005 BY
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C,
HARIHARA AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
25.10.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.79/2015 AND
ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS
CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13684
CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020
C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 35 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI LAXMIPATHI NAIK
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT GOODS GUARD 'A' RAILWAY
QUARTERS, R/O. 26/A,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HARIHAR - 577601
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MR. C.N.ANNAPPA
S/O C. NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT MANJUNATH ELECTRICAL
MARATA GALLI, HARIHARA
DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 30.06.2015 MADE IN C.C.NO.828/2005 BY
THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR AND
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 MADE IN
CRL.A.NO.80/2015 BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ACQUIT HIM OF
THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE
COURTS BELOW.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:13684
CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020
C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 42 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI LAXMIPATHI NAIK
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT GOODS GUARD 'A' RAILWAY
QUARTERS, R/O. 26/A,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HARIHAR - 577601
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.T.R.PRASANNA
S/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
CONTRACT LABOURER IN RAILWAY STATION
R/AT NEAR WATER TANK
HARLAPUR, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 28.09.2015 MADE IN C.C.NO.874/2005 BY
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR
AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 MADE IN
CRL.A.NO.113/2015 BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE ACQUIT HIM
OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE
COURT BELOW.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR SETTLEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:13684
CRL.RP No. 31 of 2020
C/W CRL.RP No. 35 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 42 of 2020
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner
and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. In all the Revision Petitions, the complainants
are different but the accused is same.
3. In Crl.R.P.No.31/2020, the Cheque amount is
Rs.65,000/-. In Crl.R.P.No.35/2020, the Cheque amount is
Rs.60,000/- and in another Crl.R.P.No.42/2020, the
Cheque amount is Rs.25,000/-. All the complainant in
respective revision petitions says that the accused
borrowed the loan amount and issued the Cheques and
the Cheques issued by the accused are dishonored and
hence, respective complaints are filed and cognizance was
taken in respective cases. The accused was secured and
accused total defense was set out in all the cases that one
Manjunath has taken 10 Cheques in order to get the loan
from the Bank. Those Cheques have been misused and
handed over to these complainants and filed the
complaint. The complainant in respective cases examined
NC: 2024:KHC:13684
themselves as PW1 in all the cases. Though the defense
was set-out, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of
the respective PW1 with regard to the contention that the
Cheque was collected by Manjunath and those Cheques
are handed over to these complainants, even the revision
petitioner also not made any effort to examine the said
Manjunath and nothing is placed on record to probablize
the case of defense of the accused. Admittedly, the
issuance of Cheque is not in dispute and complainant also
produced the original Cheque at Ex.P1 and also respective
endorsement before the Trial Court. When transaction is
only for an amount of Rs.65,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and
Rs.25,000/- in respective revision petitions. In a revision
petition, only Court can look into any answer elicited from
the mouth of PW1 has not been considered by the
respective Courts. But, the Appellate Court re-assessed
the evidence available on record and confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court in respective cases and having
taken note of the presumption under Section 139 of
Negotiable Instruments also, when the Cheques are not
NC: 2024:KHC:13684
disputed. Though contend that 10 Cheques were collected
and misused in order to probablize the case of revision
petitioner also nothing is elicited in the cross-examination
of PW1 -complainant in respective cases. When such being
the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court. Even the presumption has not been rebutted.
Though examined DW1 in respective cases and produced
the document of 'D'- series i.e., certified copy of
complaint, notice, postal envelop, postal receipt, order
sheet, deposition and Cheques, since several complaints
are filed against him. Mere marking of those documents
also not probablize the case of the accused. When such
being the case, unless the evidence of complainant is
rebutted in all the cases, question of exercising the
revision does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground in
all the revision petitions to comes to a other conclusion.
Hence, no merits in the revision petitions.
NC: 2024:KHC:13684
4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
