Karnataka High Court

Sri D B Jatti vs Sri R Venkatesh Reddy on 16 January, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:1927
                                                        CRL.RP No. 168 of 2016




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 168 OF 2016
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. D.B. JATTI,
                   S/O LATE B.D. JATTI,
                   AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
                   R/AT DWARAKA MAYEE,
                   SY.NO.51, ECC ROAD,
                   WHITEFIELD,
                   BANGALORE - 560 066.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SMT. VIJETHA R NAIK, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   SRI. R. VENKATESH REDDY,
                   S/O LATE L. RAMAIAH REDDY,
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S       AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
Location: High     R/AT NO.148,
Court of           RAJAPALYA (HOODU),
Karnataka
                   ITPL MAIN ROAD,
                   MAHADEVAPURA POST,
                   BANGALORE - 560 048.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. S. NARAYANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

                          THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
                   PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2015
                   PASSED BY THE LEARNED LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J.,
                                   -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:1927
                                          CRL.RP No. 168 of 2016




MAYO      HALL   UNIT,   BENGALURU       (CCH-58)    IN    CRL.A.NO.
25162/2014 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 19.09.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIV
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGLAURU IN C.C.NO.26056/2012 AND SET
THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY.

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

                                 ORDER

The revision petitioner/accused has preferred this

revision petition against the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 19.09.2014 passed in

C.C.No.26056/2012 by the XIV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which is confirmed by

the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall

Unit, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.25162/2014 dated

16.12.2015.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred

to as per their ranking before the Court below.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the accused is a

Proprietor of Jatti Automobiles. The complainant and his

NC: 2024:KHC:1927

family have deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as fixed

deposit in the accused company and he promised to pay

interest every month a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the

complainant. The accused failed to pay interest amount,

but he issued a cheque bearing No.150546 dated

05.09.2011 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank,

Devanahalli Branch, Bangalore District. The said cheque

was returned with endorsement as 'payment stopped'.

The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on

15.09.2011 through RPAD. Due to non-receipt of postal

acknowledgment, the complainant lodged a complaint

before the Postal Department, but the accused has not

complied with the demand notice. Hence the complainant

has filed complaint. After taking cognizance, case was

registered in C.C.No.26056/2012 and summons was

issued to the accused. In response to summons, accused

appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail.

Substantial accusation was recorded. Accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case of the

complainant, one witness was examined as PW.1 and six

NC: 2024:KHC:1927

documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 6. On closure of

complainant's side evidence, statement under Section 313

of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has totally denied the

evidence of PW.1, but he has stated in his evidence that

he has issued Cheque in the year 2009 for the purpose of

security. Accused also led his evidence as DW.1. Having

heard the arguments, the Trial Court has sentenced the

accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and further ordered to pay compensation

of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3)

of Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

19.09.2014, the accused has preferred an Appeal before

the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo

Hall Unit, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.25162/2014.

The said appeal came to be dismissed by judgment dated

16.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the judgment of both the

Courts, the accused/revision petitioner has preferred this

revision petition.

NC: 2024:KHC:1927

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has taken

several contentions in the memorandum of revision

petition, but she has restricted her arguments to

modification of sentence only to the extent of fine and

compensation imposed by the Trial Court. Further she

submits that age of the accused is more than 75 years and

he is suffering from various diseases. The accused has not

committed any offence prior to the alleged commission of

offence. On all these grounds, sought modification of

sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, which is

confirmed by the Appellate Court.

5. There is no representation on behalf of the

respondent. Hence arguments on behalf of respondent's

counsel is taken as nil.

6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for

the revision petitioner and on perusal of the records, the

following points would arise for my consideration:-

NC: 2024:KHC:1927

a. Whether the revision petitioner is entitled

for modification of sentence ?

b. What order ?

My answer to the above point (a) is in the 'affirmative' and

point (b) is as per the final order.

7. I have carefully examined the materials placed

before this Court. The respondent/complainant has filed a

complaint against the accused for the commission of

offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. To

substantiate the case of the complainant, complainant

himself is examined as PW.1 and six documents were

marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The accused has adduced

evidence as DW.1. Considering the evidence placed by

the complainant the Trial Court has convicted the accused

for the commission of offence punishable under Section

138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months.

NC: 2024:KHC:1927

8. Further the Trial Court has passed an order to pay

compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant and

imposed fine of Rs.2,000/-. The Appellate Court has

dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner. At

the time of filing complaint, the age of the petitioner was

more than 75 years. The accused was not previously

convicted for any offence prior to the alleged commission

of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The

alleged commission of offence is punishable with

imprisonment for a period of two years or with fine or

both.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

it is just and proper to modify the sentence passed by the

Trial Court by imposing fine and compensation as awarded

by the Trial Court. Hence I answer point (a) in the

affirmative. Insofar as point (b) is concerned for the

aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the

following:-

ORDER

NC: 2024:KHC:1927

a. The revision petition is allowed-in-part.

b. The judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2014 passed

by the Trial Court in C.C.No.26056/2012 on the file of the

XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru,

which is confirmed by the Appellate Court in Criminal

Appeal No.25162/2014 dated 16.12.2015 by the LVII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit,

Bangalore, are confirmed.

c. The sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as

under :-

i. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Fine amount is already deposited by

the accused).

ii. The accused shall pay compensation of

Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant as awarded by

the Trial Court.

iii. The accused is directed to deposit the

remaining amount of compensation (if any

amount is already deposited) before the Trial

Court within 30 days.