Karnataka High Court
Sri A G Raghunatha vs Sri G V Chalapathi on 28 May, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17808
CRL.RP No. 398 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 398 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. A.G. RAGHUNATHA,
S/O LATE GOPALKRISHNA,
AGED 41 YEARS, ANKATHATTI VILLAGE,
MATNAHALLI POST, SUGUTURU HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. G.V. CHALAPATHI,
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED 46 YEARS,
R/O GARUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally VOKKALERI HOBLI,
signed by R KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101.
MANJUNATHA
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 29.01.2019 IN
C.C.NO.1072/2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
JMFC, KOLAR AND JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2021 IN
CRL.A.NO.14/2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17808
CRL.RP No. 398 of 2021
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
None present on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present revision petition is filed by the revision
petitioner challenging the order of conviction and sentence
passed in CC No.1072/2018 which was confirmed in Criminal
Appeal No.14/2019 for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
A private complaint came to be filed by the respondent
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the complainant has
lent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused as a loan with a
promise that the accused would repay the amount within a
short time. After repeated demands, accused passed on a
cheque bearing No.044861 dated 22.03.2016 towards the
repayment of the loan amount drawn on State Bank of Mysore,
PC Extention Branch, Kolar, which on presentation came to be
dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'.
NC: 2024:KHC:17808
4. Thereafter, the complainant issued the legal notice
dated 27.06.2016. It is further contended by the complainant
that there is no compliance to the callings of the notice nor
there was any reply which necessitated the complainant to file
a complaint before the learned Trial Magistrate.
5. Presence of the accused was secured and plea was
recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such trial was
held.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant,
complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and relied on 13
documentary evidence on record which were exhibited and
marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.13.
7. To rebut the evidence placed on record by the
complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and one
more witness was examined as D.W.2 and placed on record 11
documentary evidence on record which were exhibited and
marked as Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.11.
8. Thereafter, the learned Trial Magistrate recorded
the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. and thereafter, heard the arguments of the parties in
NC: 2024:KHC:17808
detail and convicted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
imposed fine in a sum of Rs.6,10,000/-, out of which sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the
complainant.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate, the accused
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal
Appeal No.14/2019.
10. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records and hearing the arguments, vide judgment
dated 23.02.2021, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
order of conviction and sentence.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before
this Court.
12. Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated
the material evidence that is placed on record by the accused
NC: 2024:KHC:17808
and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the
revision petition.
13. Respondent though served and engaged a counsel,
did not choose to appear before the Court and advance the
arguments.
14. In the light of the arguments that has been put
forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the
material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the
material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute as
to the signature that is found on Ex.P.1 - cheque is that of the
revision petitioner.
15. Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, the complainant enjoys the presumption that when once
the cheque is issued and the signature is admitted, the cheque
is issued for the valuable consideration. According to the
petitioner, the complainant has failed to prove his financial
capacity to lend sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.
16. In order to establish the same, the revision
petitioner has placed on record, the oral evidence of D.W.1 and
D.W.2 and documentary evidence vide Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.11.
NC: 2024:KHC:17808
17. Exs.D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6 are the certified
copies of documents. Exs.D.7 and Ex.D.8 are the pass book of
Karnataka Bank. Exs.D.9 and Ex.D.10 are the certified copies
of the notice and reply. Ex.D.11 is the passbook of State Bank
of Mysore.
18. The learned Trial Magistrate has taken into
consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record and
has discussed in detail in paragraph No.19 as to the
presumption that is available to the complainant under Section
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by placing the reliance
on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
K.N.Beena V/s Muniyappan reported in AIR 2001 SC 2895
and has held that the complainant has discharged the initial
burden. Further, the Trial Court placed on record the principles
of law enunciated in the case of Rangappa V/s Mohan
reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 and then came to the
conclusion that the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record by the accused was not sufficient to rebut the
presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:17808
19. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on
revisiting to the facts and circumstances of the case, came to
the conclusion that the material evidence on record was
sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction.
20. When both the Courts have concurrently held on
facts that the accused has not been able to rebut the
presumption available to the complainant and record, this Court
that too in the revisional jurisdiction cannot revisit into the
factual aspects of the matter namely the complainant did not
have the lending capacity and therefore, no grounds are made
out muchless good ground to interfere with the orders of the
Trial Court.
21. However, the learned Trial Magistrate has imposed
sum of Rs.6,10,000/- as the fine amount but directed that
compensation in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to be paid to the
complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- to be
appropriated towards the State for defraying the expenses.
22. Since, the lis is between the private parties viz., the
complainant and the accused, there is no involvement of the
NC: 2024:KHC:17808
State machinery, imposing the fine of Rs.10,000/- is thus
illegal. Accordingly, the sentence needs to be modified partly.
23. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part,
while maintaining the conviction, the fine
amount ordered by the learned Trial
Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate
Court in a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- is modified to
the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and the said amount
of Rs.6,00,000/- is to be paid as compensation
to the complainant.
ii. Rest of the sentence stands unaltered.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
CT: BHK
