Karnataka High Court
Shri Maruti Yallappa Gojagekar vs Jayashankar Kalkundrikar ... on 13 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3343
CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100177 OF 2022
(397-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MARUTI YALLAPPA GOJAGEKAR
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 915, DATTA GALLI, BASURTE,
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI -590003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH.B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR JAYASHANKAR KALKUNDRIKAR MULTIPURPOSE
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI SOUHARD SAHAKARI LTD.,
Date: 2024.02.15
11:58:11 +0530 UNCHAGAON BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS RECOVERY MANAGER,
SHRI VINAYAK GOAL MOHITE PATIL,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. PATIL GALLIM YALLUR,
TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI 590003.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MEENAL M. KALKUNDRIKAR &
SMT.BHAGYASHREE N. BIKKANNAVAR, ADV.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3343
CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.
397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
325/2019 DATED 19.11.2019, IN DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY
CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1212/2018 DATED
17.08.2019, PASSED BY THE VII-J.M.F.C. BELAGAVI, FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION
PETITION.IA-1/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY.IA-1/2022
IS FILED U/SEC. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO
CONDONE THE DELAY OF 03 DAYS IN FILING THE REVISION
PETITION.
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 VII-J.M.F.C. Belagavi
in C.C.No.1212/2018 dated 17.08.2019 and the judgment
and order dated 19.11.2019 passed in Crl.Appeal
No.325/2019 by the Court of the XI Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3343
3. The respondent herein 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 in
C.C.No.1212/2018. In the said case, the petitioner herein
had claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate its case,
the respondent had examined its Recovery Manager as
PW1 and had got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P10. In support of the defence, no evidence was led by
the petitioner. The trial Court after hearing the arguments
addressed by 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.3,01,000/-
and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court was confirmed in
Crl.Appeal No.325/2019 by the Court of the XI
Addl.Sessions Judge, Belagavi on 19.11.2021. Therefore,
the petitioner is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3343
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition prays to allow
the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has argued in support of the impugned
judgment and order and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The respondent is a registered Multipurpose
Cooperative Society and the material on record would go
to show that the petitioner had borrowed loan from the
respondent and towards discharge of the outstanding in
the loan account, he had issued the cheque bearing
No.067646 dated 16.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,97,444/-
in favour of the respondent-Society. The said cheque on
presentation for realization, was dishonored by the drawee
bank. The respondent has proved the transaction with the
petitioner by producing Ex.P7-loan application, Ex.P8-loan
and surety bond, Ex.P9-loan account statement and
Ex.P10-ledger account statement. The petitioner has not
disputed the signature found in the cheque in question nor
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3343
has he disputed that the cheque was drawn on his account
maintained by him in the drawee bank. Under the
circumstances, the presumption under Section 139 of the
NI Act arose against the petitioner and such presumption
was not rebutted by the petitioner by raising any probable
defence.
7. The respondent has proved the transaction by
producing necessary oral and documentary evidence and
the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed by
the respondent after complying all the statutory
requirement as provided under the provisions of the NI
Act. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view
that the Courts below were fully justified in convicting and
sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the NI Act. I do not find any illegality or
irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and the
appellate Court and the same do not call for any
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3343
interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional
power. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
8. The amount deposited, if any, by the petitioner
either before the trial Court or before this Court is
permitted to be withdrawn by the
respondent/complainant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
