Karnataka High Court
Sri.Shivanand S/O Shiddappa Naganur vs Mahesh S/O Bharamppa Gadgin on 5 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2491
CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100361 OF 2021 (397)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVANAND S/O.SHIDDAPPA NAGANUR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
R/O. ASHWININAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
TQ. HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI,
@ CTP 4624, CENTRAL PRISON,
DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANURADHA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHESH S/O. BHARAMPPA GADGIN,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURAHATTIPETH, BETAGERI,
TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally (NOTICE ISSUED TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED BUT
signed by UNREPRESENTED)
SUJATA
SUBHASH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
PAMMAR SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO THE
Date: ENTIRE RECORDS IN CC NO.55/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ST
2024.02.14 ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC I COURT GADAG MAY BE
13:18:58 KINDLY CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED AND CRL. APPEAL NO.
+0530 14/2019 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT
GADAG AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.01.2020
PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14/2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE IN CC
NO.55/2016 BY I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC I COURT,
GADAG DATED 08.02.2019 U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT MAY KINDLY SET
ASIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REVISION PETITIONER BE
KINDLY ACQUITTED.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2491
CRL.RP No. 100361 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed with a prayer
to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Court of the I Addl. Civil Judge
and JMFC-I, Gadag in C.C.No.55/2016 dated 08.02.2019
and the judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by
the Court of the I Addl.Principal Family Court, Gadag in
Crl.Appeal No.14/2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Respondent who is served in the matter has
remained unrepresented.
4. Respondent had initiated proceedings against
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI
Act') before the trial Court. The petitioner who had entered
appearance in the said case before the trial Court claimed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2491
to be tried. Respondent therefore in support of his case
had examined himself as PW1 and got marked 5
documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the defence, no
evidence was led nor was any document marked. The trial
Court after hearing both the parties, had convicted the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the NI Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,05,000/-
and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 6 months. The said judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court was confirmed in
Crl.Appeal No.14/2019 by the I Addl.Principal Family
Court, Gadag vide order dated 31.01.2020. Therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having
reiterated the grounds in the petition submits that the
cheque in question was given as a security and the same
was misused by the complainant. Accordingly, she prays
to allow the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2491
6. It is the case of the respondent/complainant
that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from
the respondent for his family needs and towards
repayment of the said amount, he had issued the cheque
bearing No.036325 dated 05.11.2015 drawn on Merchant
Liberal Co-op. Bank, Gadag in favour of the
respondent/complainant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The
said cheque on presentation for realization was
dishonoured by the drawee bank. Thereafter the
complainant had got issued legal notice to the petitioner
and since the amount covered under the cheque was not
paid in spite of service of legal notice, after complying the
other requirements of Negotiable Instruments Act, he had
filed a complaint before the trial Court against the
petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
NI Act.
7. The petitioner has not disputed the cheque in
question nor has he disputed the signature found in the
cheque in question. The only defence taken by the
petitioner before the trial Court is that the cheque in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2491
question was issued to Haveri Credit Co-operative Society
towards repayment of vehicle loan and the same is
misused by the Manager of the said Society. The said
defence taken by the petitioner has not been probabalised
or proved by him by producing any evidence before the
trial Court. Except making suggestion to PW1 with regard
to his defence, the complainant has not proved his defence
either by examining himself before the trial Court or by
producing any other evidence. Therefore, the presumption
that arose against the petitioner under Section 139 of the
NI Act stood unrebutted. It is under these circumstances,
the trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Appellate
Court having re-appreciated oral and documentary
evidence produced before the trial Court has confirmed the
said judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial
Court.
8. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the
judgment and order passed by the Courts below against
the petitioner herein. Even the sentence imposed against
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2491
him by the Courts below is just and proper. Under these
circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere
with the well reasoned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the Courts below, which is
impugned in this revision petition. Therefore, revision
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
