Karnataka High Court
Shri Somnath S/O Bharma Mallannavar vs Shri Sandeep S/O Hanamant Patil on 6 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2561
CRL.RP No. 100322 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100322 OF 2021 (397)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SOMNATH S/O. BHARMA MALLANNAVAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. TAL. CHANDGAD VILLAGE,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE 590016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. SANDEEP S/O. HANAMANT PATIL,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. FABRICATION,
R/O. GANPAT GALLI, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
TAL. MUTAGA VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
PIN CODE-591124.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by SUJATA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397
SUBHASH
PAMMAR AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
Date: ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE
2024.02.14
13:19:25 JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16/2021 DATED
+0530
24/05/2021 U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ALSO THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN C.C. 663/2019 DATED
16/07/2020 U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, PASSED BY THE VII JMFC,
BELAGAVI, AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2561
CRL.RP No. 100322 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 VII JMFC, Belagavi in
C.C.No.663/2019 dated 16.07.2020 and the judgment and
order passed by the Court of the VI Addl.District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Appeal No.16/2021 dated
24.05.2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The respondent though served in the matter, has
remained unrepresented before this Court.
3. Respondent had filed a private complaint
against the petitioner with a prayer to prosecute the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI
Act'). In the said proceedings, the petitioner had entered
appearance and claimed to be tried. To substantiate his
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2561
case, the respondent had examined himself before the trial
Court as PW1 and had got marked 15 documents as
Exs.P1 to P15. In support of his defence, the petitioner has
not led any evidence nor was any document marked on his
behalf. The trial Court after hearing the arguments
addressed on both sides, had convicted the petitioner for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act
and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.75,000/- and in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4
months and the judgment and order passed by the trial
Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.Appeal
No.16/2021, which was disposed of on 24.05.2019.
Therefore the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition prays to allow
the petition.
5. It is the case of the complainant that the
petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- as hand
loan from the complainant and towards repayment of the
said amount, he had issued the cheque in question dated
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2561
10.09.2018 bearing cheque No.00060 drawn on IDFC
Muchandi branch, Belagavi and on presentation of the
cheque for realization, it was dishonoured by the drawee
Bank with a shara 'funds insufficient'. After complying the
statutory requirements as provided under the provisions of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent had
initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is not in
dispute that the cheque in question was drawn on the
account of the petitioner and the petitioner has not
disputed the issuance of the cheque nor had he disputed
the signature and the writings found in the cheque in
question. The only defence taken by the petitioner before
the trial Court is that he had issued the cheque in question
to one Bhagwant as security for a loan of Rs.20,000/-
borrowed from him from the said Bhagwant. The said
defence is not proved or probablized by the petitioner by
producing any evidence before the trial Court. The
petitioner has not stepped into the witness box nor had he
examined any witness to prove that the cheque in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2561
question was given as a security for the loan of
Rs.20,000/- borrowed by him from Bhagwant.
6. The presumption that arose against the
petitioner under Section 139 of the NI Act therefore stood
un-rebutted. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
having taken note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter,
have convicted the petitioner for the offence punishment
under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to pay
fine of Rs.75,000/-. The impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are
well reasoned, sound and legal and do not call for any
interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, I do not find any
good ground to entertain this revision petition. Revision
petition is therefore dismissed.
Registry is directed to forthwith return the trial Court
records.
Sd/-
JUDGE
