Karnataka High Court
M/S Jayess Steels vs Mr Mahendra Jolapara on 26 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
CRL.RP No. 505 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 504 of 2016
CRL.RP No. 506 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.505 OF 2016
C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.504 OF 2016
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.506 OF 2016
IN CRL.RP NO.505/2016
BETWEEN:
1. M/S JAYESS STEELS
NO.8/2, POTTERS COLONY
3RD CROSS, NEW BAMBOO BAZAAR,
BENGALURU-560 002.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNERS
MR. SULTAN AHMED
PARTNER, M/S JAYESS STEELS,
MAJOR, R/O NO.13,
Digitally
signed by 18TH STREET,
MALATESH CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD CROSS,
KC BENGALURU-560 051.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. MR. A. JAMEEL AHMED
KARNATAKA PARTNER,
M/S JAYESS STEELS,
MAJOR,
R/O NO.47, SGN LAYOUT,
LALBAGH ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
CRL.RP No. 505 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 504 of 2016
CRL.RP No. 506 of 2016
AND:
MR MAHENDRA JOLAPARA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANTHILAL BHAGWANJI,
30TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR,
6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XV
ADDL.C.M.M, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.6806/2014 DATED
28.07.2015 AND OF ORDER OF THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND S.J., BENGALURU PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1087/2015 DATED
23.03.2016.
IN CRL.RP NO.504/2016
BETWEEN
1. M/S JAYESS STEELS
NO.8/2, POTTERS COLONY
3RD CROSS, NEW BAMBOO BAZAAR,
BENGALURU-560 002.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNERS
MR. SULTAN AHMED
PARTNER, M/S JAYESS STEELS,
MAJOR, R/O NO.13,
18TH STREET,
CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 051.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
CRL.RP No. 505 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 504 of 2016
CRL.RP No. 506 of 2016
2. MR. A. JAMEEL AHMED
PARTNER,
M/S JAYESS STEELS,
MAJOR,
R/O NO.47, SGN LAYOUT,
LALBAGH ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BALARAJ A.C, ADVOCATE)
AND
MR MAHENDRA JOLAPARA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANTHILAL BHAGWANJI,
30TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR,
6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XV
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.6805/2014 DATED
28.07.2015 AND OF ORDER OF THE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND S.J., BANGALORE PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1086/2015 DATED
23.03.2016.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.506/2016
BETWEEN
1. M/S JAYESS STEELS
NO.8/2, POTTERS COLONY,
3RD CROSS, NEW BAMBOO BAZAAR,
BENGALURU-560 002
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
CRL.RP No. 505 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 504 of 2016
CRL.RP No. 506 of 2016
2. MR.SULTAN AHMED
PARTNER, M/S. JAYEES STEELS,
MAJOR, R/O NO.13, 18TH STREET,
CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 051.
3 . MR A.JAMEEL AHMED
PARTNER, M/S. JAYEES STEELS,
MAJOR, R/O NO.47, SGN LAYOUT,
LALBAGH ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . MR MAHENDRA JOLAPARA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANTHILAL BHAGWANJI,
30TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR,
6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XV
ADDL.C.M.M, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.6807/2014 DATED
28.07.2015 AND OF ORDER OF THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND S.J., BENGALURU PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1088/2015 DATED
23.03.2016.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
CRL.RP No. 505 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 504 of 2016
CRL.RP No. 506 of 2016
ORDER
Heard Sri A.C.Balaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Vijayakumar Prakash, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. Accused who have been convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
in C.C Nos.6805/2014, 6806/2014 and 6807/2014 confirmed in
Criminal Appeal Nos.1087/2015, 1086/2015, 1088/2015 have
filed the present revision petitions.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present revision petitions are as under.
Case of the complainant is that accused No.1 is the
partnership firm represented by accused Nos.2 and 3, had loan
transaction in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for development of the
business. Loan was paid through cheque. Complainant
demanded repayment and accused issued three cheques
amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-. Those cheques, on presentation,
came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds
insufficient'. and legal notice returned with an endorsement
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
'door locked'. Thereafter, action was sought for by the
complainant against the accused.
4. The learned Trial Magistrate secured the presence of the
accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty.
Therefore, trial was held.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant,
complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and produced as
many as fourteen documents, exhibited and marked as Exs.P1
to P 14.
6. Statement of the accused as is contemplated under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded
wherein accused denied all the incriminating circumstances.
7. Accused No.2 got himself examined as DW-1 and marked
documents as Ex. D.1. Thereafter, learned trial Magistrate
heard the parties and, raising presumption in favour of the
complainant and also taking into consideration the payment
said to have been made by the accused vide Ex. D-1 to the
complainant, convicted accused for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
awarded fine in a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- of which
Rs.15,25,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the
complainant and balance amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- as
fine towards defraying expenses of the State.
8. The conviction order was challenged by the accused
before the First Appellate Court.
9. The learned Judge in the first Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the parties and dismissed the
appeal, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed
by the learned Trial Magistrate.
10. Thereafter, accused has filed these revision petitions
assailing both orders of conviction.
11. Sri Balaraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioners
contended that payments made by the accused to the
complainant as is depicted in Ex.D-1 is not given due
concession though the learned trial judge has referred the
same in the impugned order of conviction.
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
12. He also pointed out that the transaction being admitted
and part payment having been made, convicting the accused
by imposing fine of Rs.15,50,000/- as against due even
according to the complainant to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/-
cheque is on the higher side and impermissible and thus sought
for modifying the sentence in the event of this Court
maintaining the conviction.
13. Per contra, Sri Vijay Kumar Prakash, learned counsel
supports the impugned judgment by contending that even after
giving all deductions as per Ex. D1, accused was due and
therefore the cheque in question was to the tune of
Rs.12,00,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonoured
and therefore imposing fine of Rs.15,50,000/- is justified
having regard to the number of years that the matter was
pending before the learned trial Judge and first appellate Court.
14. Having heard 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 cheque in question was issued by the accused to
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
the complainant, so also signature found therein is not in
dispute. Transaction between the complainant and accused is
also not in dispute in view of the fact that some repayment has
been already made by the accused to the complainant vide
Ex.D1.
16. According to accused learned trial Magistrate and the
learned Judge in the first appellate Court did not consider the
payment made vide Ex.D1.
17. Learned trial Magistrate in the impugned judgment has
bestowed its attention to the said plea of the accused in
paragraph 11 and its judgment.
18. Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court has also re-
appreciated the said aspect of the matter and recorded
conviction, which does not require interference by this Court,
that too in the revisional jurisdiction by revisiting into the
factual aspects.
19. Having said this, it is seen that in the business
transaction amount has been lent and till today complainant is
not able to recover the entire cheque amount.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
20. Therefore, fine imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate
confirmed by the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court in a
sum of Rs.15,25,000/- as compensation payable to the
complainant needs no interference.
21. However, since lis is privy to the parties and no State
machinery is involved, awarding Rs.25,000/- towards defraying
expenses to the State needs interference by this court in this
revision petition.
22. Accordingly, the following.
ORDER
(i) Revision petitions are allowed in Part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for
the offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount ordered by
the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the
learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in a sum
of Rs.15,50,000/- is reduced to Rs.15,25,000/- and
entire sum is payable as compensation to the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24251
complainant failing which accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years.
(iii) Time is granted up to 25th July 2024 to pay the
balance amount.
(iv) Fine in a sum of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the
learned trial Magistrate towards defraying expenses
of the State is hereby set aside.
(v) Amount in deposit, if any, is order to be released in
favour of the complainant.
(vi) Office is directed to return the trial code records
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
