Karnataka High Court

B.V. Nataraja vs Chetana L N on 6 November, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                     -1-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:44733
                                            CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                   BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
               CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 465 OF 2022


            BETWEEN:

            B.V.NATARAJA
            S/O B.VEERABHADRAPPA,
            AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
            R/AT NO.57/58, GROUND FLOOR,
            4TH CROSS, A SECTOR,
            AMRUTHA NAGAR,
            SHANKARA NAGARA POST,
            BENGALURU-560092.
                                                      ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            CHETANA L.N.,
            S/O NIRANJANA MURTHY
            AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Digitally
signed by   AGRICULTURIST
MALATESH    R/AT SAVALANGA VILLAGE
KC          HONNALI TALUK
Location:   DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577225.
HIGH                                                 ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF  (BY SRI D.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
                 THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
            TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2022
            IN CRL.A.NO.76/2021, PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL
            DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, CONFIRMING
            THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2021 IN C.C.NO.2449/2018 PASSED
            BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIVAMOGGA
            AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE REVISION.
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:44733
                                      CRL.RP No. 465 of 2022




     THIS CRL.RP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                        ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Santhosh Kumar M.B., learned counsel for

the revision petitioner and Sri D.Gangadhara, learned

counsel for respondent.

2. Accused suffered an order of conviction in C.C.

No.2449/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I.

Act) and ordered of pay fine amount of `9,00,000/-, out of

which, an amount of `8,90,000/- to be paid as

compensation to the complainant and balance amount of

`10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State,

confirmed in Crl.A. No.76/2021, has filed the present

revision petition.

3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision

petition as under:

NC: 2024:KHC:44733

A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of

Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of offence

under Section 138 of N.I. Act contending that the

complainant is having stock commodities and the accused

to obtain financial assistance from the complainant and he

raised a loan of `25,00,000/- for investing the said

amount in the business carried on by the accused in the

name and style of M/s.Marigudi Agriventure. The loan

amount was paid through the bank transaction and

accused failed to re-pay the same. Ultimately, the

accused passed on a cheque towards part repayment

which on presentation, came to be dishonoured. Legal

notice was issued, calling upon the accused to pay the

amount covered under the cheque. As there are no

compliance of the notice, complainant was constrained to

file the complaint against the accused.

4. The learned trial Magistrate after completing the

necessary formalities, summoned the accused and

NC: 2024:KHC:44733

recorded the plea. The accused pleaded not guilty,

therefore, the trial was held.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant,

complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and one

witness by name Sri Rahul as PW.2. Complainant placed

on record eight documents in support of his contention

which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P8

comprising of dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement,

copies of legal notice, postal cover and Agreement dated

29.09.2016.

6. Detail cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 did not

yield any positive material, so as to disbelieve the version

of the complainant not to dislodge the presumption

available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I.

Act.

7. Accused statement as is contemplated under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial

Magistrate, wherein the accused has denied all the

NC: 2024:KHC:44733

incriminating materials/circumstances. Accused did not

chose to place any written submission on record as is

contemplated under Section 313 (4) of Cr.P.C. nor placed

any defence evidence on record.

8. Thereafter, the Trial Magistrate heard the parties

and convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to

supra.

9. Aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal

before the District Court in Crl.A. No.76/2021.

10. The learned III Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, after securing the records, heard the parties in

detail and dismissed the appeal of the accused.

11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

before this Court in this revision.

12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition,

vehemently contended that both the courts have not

properly appreciated the material on record and wrongly

NC: 2024:KHC:44733

convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision

petition.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

supports the impugned judgment.

14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously and

following points would arise for consideration:

i. Whether the revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from patent factual or legal error or error of jurisdiction so as to term the impugned judgment as perverse in nature calling for interference by this Court in this revision petition?

ii. Whether the sentence is excessive?

iii. What order?

Re: point No.(i):

15. In the case on hand, issuance of cheque and

signature of the accused in the said case is not in dispute.

NC: 2024:KHC:44733

Legal notice issued by the complainant is not even replied

by the accused. A close reading of cross examination

goes to show that the complainant has issued the cheque

in question. No contra evidence is placed on record by the

accused.

16. Documentary evidence in the form of

dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, copy of legal

notice and Agreement dated 29.09.2016 would be

sufficient to enough to invoke the presumption available

to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act,

which has been rightly invoked by the trial Magistrate and

rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge of the First

Appellate Court.

17. In order to rebut the presumption, there is no

contra evidence placed on record by the accused either by

examining himself or placing any oral and documentary

evidence.

NC: 2024:KHC:44733

18. Under such circumstances, conviction of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I. Act is just and proper having regard to the principles

of law enunciated in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay

Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148.

Re: Point No.(ii):

19. As against the cheque amount of `9,00,000/-,

the learned Trial Judge has imposed only `9,00,000/- as

the fine amount and out of which, a sum of `8,90,000/- is

ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant

and balance amount of `10,000/- towards defraying

expenses of the State.

20. Since lis in privy to the parties and there is no

State machinery is involved ordering `10,000/- to be paid

as fine towards defraying expenses of the State is totally

uncalled for. Therefore, the entire amount of

`9,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to

NC: 2024:KHC:44733

the complainant as the cheque amount. Accordingly, point

No.(ii) is answered partly in favour of the complainant.

Re: Point No.(iii):

21. In view of the findings of this Court on point

Nos.(i) and (ii) as above, following order is passed:

ORDER

a) Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.

b) Amount of compensation awarded by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of `9,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant by setting aside imposing of fine of `10,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State.

           c) Balance amount            to be paid by the
           revision     petitioner        on     or        before
           10.12.2024,        failing    which,       he    shall
           undergo      simple          imprisonment          as
           ordered by the trial Magistrate.
                                  - 10 -
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:44733





              (d)    Office is directed to return   the