Karnataka High Court
Mr K S Krishnananda vs The Secretary on 7 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20288
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.454 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MR. K. S. KRISHNANANDA
S/O. SRINIVASA PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SUBHASH ROAD
KOPPA TOWN AND POST
KOPPA TALUK-57126
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHA G., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SECRETARY
T.A.P.C.M.S. LTD.,
KOPPA TOWN, KOPPA POST
Digitally AND TALUK-57126
signed by R ...RESPONDENT
MANJUNATHA
Location: (BY SRI GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2019
IN CRL.A.NO.196/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED
02.11.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.159/2018 (C.C.NO.53/2013)
ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT N.R.PURA, ITINERATE AT KOPPA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20288
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2021
ORDER
Heard Sri Harsha G, learned counsel for Sri Sachin B.S.,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gireesha Kodgi,
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Accused is the revision petitioner who suffered an order
of conviction in C.C.No.53/2013 (old), C.C.No.159/2018 (new)
on the file of the 02nd day of November 2018 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura, itinerate at Koppa,
which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.196/2018 dated 21st October
2019 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkamagaluru.
3. The facts of the case reveal that accused passed on a
cheque in a sum of Rs.22,300/- bearing No.014848, drawn on
Syndicate Bank, Koppa Branch, which on presentation came to
be dishonoured and legal notice came to be issued. There was
no compliance to the callings of the notice which necessitated
the complainant to file a complaint before the jurisdictional
Magistrate for taking action for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:20288
4. Presence of the accused was secured before the Trial
Court and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and
therefore, trial was held.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant,
complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and one more
witness by name Seetharam as P.W.2, as P.W.1 did not turn up
for cross-examination.
6. On behalf of the complainant, six documents were placed
on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 6,
comprised of cheque, bank endorsements, legal notice, postal
acknowledgment and copy of resolution.
7. On conclusion of recording of evidence, statement of the
accused as contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, wherein, accused has denied all the
incriminating circumstances. To rebut the evidence placed on
record on behalf of the complainant, there is no contra
evidence placed on record on behalf of the accused either oral
or documentary.
NC: 2024:KHC:20288
8. Later on, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties and
by the judgment dated 02.11.2018 convicted the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and
awarded sum of Rs.35,000/- as fine amount as against cheque
amount of Rs.22,300/- awarded sum of Rs.34,000/- as the
compensation to complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards defraying
expenses to the State.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an
appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.196/2018.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court secured the
records and after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal
by judgment dated 21.10.2019 and confirmed the order of
conviction and sentence.
11. Subsequent thereto, accused is before this Court in this
revision petition challenging the validity of the order passed by
the learned Trial Magistrate and the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court.
12. Sri Harsha, learned counsel representing the Sri Sachin
B.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the
NC: 2024:KHC:20288
grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on
record and wrongly convicted the accused.
13. Per contra, Sri Gireesha Kodgi, learned counsel for the
respondent, supported the impugned judgments and sought for
dismissal of the revision petition.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in
dispute that the signature found in Ex.P.1-cheque is that of the
accused. According to the accused, cheque is misused by the
complainant.
16. To substantiate the said misuse, no positive action has
been taken by the accused nor accused has stepped into the
witness box and placed any evidence on record.
17. When once the cheque is issued and signature found
there is found to be that of the accused, presumption as is
available to the complainant gets automatically invoked in
NC: 2024:KHC:20288
favour of the complainant. However, said presumption is
rebuttal presumption.
18. In order to rebut the evidence placed on record by the
complainant, no contra evidence is placed on record by the
accused.
19. Under such circumstances, convicting the accused by the
learned Trial Magistrate upheld by the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court does not warrant interference by this Court, in
this revision petition.
20. However, having perused the material on record, both the
Courts got themselves misdirected in ordering Rs.1,000/- as
defraying expenses to the State, as the lis is privy to parties
and no State machinery is involved. Same needs interference.
21. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the Order of conviction of the
accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
NC: 2024:KHC:20288
fine amount of Rs.35,000/- is reduced to
Rs.34,000/-, which is to be paid as
compensation to the complainant.
(iii) Rs.1,000/- awarded by the learned Trial
Magistrate to be paid as fine towards defraying
expenses to the State is hereby set-aside.
(iv) Rest of the sentence remains unaltered.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
