Karnataka High Court

Sri Harsha Reddy vs Ms S Rohini Iyengar on 12 November, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                             -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:45757
                                                   CRL.RP No. 312 of 2020




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                 DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                      BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 312 OF 2020
            BETWEEN:

            1.    SRI HARSHA REDDY
                  PROPRIETOR,
                  AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                  M/S. GEOMEDIA ARTS,
                  FLAT NO.104, RADHAKRISHNA RESIDENCY,
                  SRINAGAR COLONY, AMEETPET,
                  HYDERBAD-74.

            2.    M/S. GEOMEDIA ARTS
                  PROPRIETORSHIP CONERN,
                  REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
                  SRI.HARSHA REDDY,
                  FLAT NO.104, RADHAKRISHNA RESIDENCY,
                  SRINAGAR COLONY, AMEETPET,
                  HYDERBAD-74.

                                                            ...PETITIONERS
Digitally   (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)
signed by
MALATESH    AND:
KC
Location:   MS. S. ROHINI IYENGAR,
HIGH        PROPRIETOR,
COURT OF    M/S BHAGAVATHIS PICTURES,
KARNATAKA
            NO.398, 20TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS,
            BEHIND TIRUMALA TEMPLE,
            J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASAE,
            BENGALURU -78.

            AND ALSO AT

            HAVING OFFICE AT NO.654
            14TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN,
            J.P.NAGAR, 2ND PHASE,
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:45757
                                    CRL.RP No. 312 of 2020




BANGALORE-560 078.
                                              ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMABHAT K.,ADVOCATE)

      THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PLEASED TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2020 PASSED BY THE LIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.55/2017 AND THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2017 PASSED BY
THE XXI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.25283/2011 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                      ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Parameshwar N.Hegde, learned counsel for

the revision petitioners and Sri.Ramabhat K, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. Accused suffered an order of conviction in

C.C.No.25283/2011 for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and was

ordered to pay a fine of Rs.6,35,000/- of which sum of

Rs.6,25,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to

the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- to be

paid towards defraying expenses to the State confirmed in

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

the Criminal Appeal No.55/2017, has preferred this

Revision Petition.

3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary

for the disposal of the present revision petition are as

under:

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C alleging the commission of the offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by

contending that, complainant and accused are in the field

of film production and in that acquaintance, complainant

has lent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused for

production of a movie.

4. Accused had agreed to repay the same and

towards the repayment, passed on a cheque bearing

No.125302 drawn on Oriental Bank, Srinagar colony,

Hyderabad, in a sum of Rs.6,25,000/-, which on

presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement

"insufficient funds". Callings of legal notice was not

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

complied but sent an untenable reply. Thereafter,

compliant sought for an action against the accused.

5. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing

necessary formalities summoned the accused. Plea was

recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore trial

was held.

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

complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and produced

five documentary evidence which were marked as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5.

7. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution

witnesses did not yield any positive material to disbelieve

the version of the complainant nor dislodge the

presumption available to the complainant under Section

139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The loan amount

was lent through the cheque and the portion of the loan

amount was re-paid and for the balance amount the

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

cheque was drawn, in the finding recorded by the trial

Magistrate on the evidence on record.

8. Thereafter, accused statement as is

contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded by

the learned Trial Magistrate, wherein accused has denied

all the incriminating materials.

9. In order to rebut the presumption available to

the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, accused got examined himself as DW.1

and placed on record three documents, which were

marked as Ex.D1 to D3 comprising of Agreement, Film

Assignment Agreement and copy of the reply.

10. In the cross-examination, accused admitted the

transaction. But accused failed to rebut the presumption

available to the complainant under Section 139 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act by placing cogent evidence on

record.

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

11. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate considered

the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a

cumulative manner and convicted the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act and passed the sentence as referred to

Supra.

12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred

an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal

Appeal No.55/2017.

13. Complainant also filed a revision petition

challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded

by the trial Magistrate in Crl.R.P.No.80/2017.

14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

considered the appeal filed by the accused and the

revision petition filed by the complainant and by re-

appreciating the material evidence on record dismissed

both the appeal filed by the accused and revision petition

filed by the complainant.

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

15. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused

has filed the present revision petition, whereas the

complainant has allowed the matter to rest with the First

Appellate Court.

16. Sri.Parameshwar N.Hegde, learned counsel for

the revision petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in

the memorandum of petition vehemently contended that

both the courts have not properly appreciated the material

evidence placed on record especially the probative value of

the Ex.D1 and D2. Therefore, there was no legally

recoverable debt found at Ex.P1 and he also points out

that the approach of the First Appellate Court in not

properly appreciating the material evidence on record has

resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing

of the revision petition. Moreso, when the learned Judge in

First Appellate Court has dismissed the revision petition

filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of fine

amount.

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

17. Per contra, Sri.Ramabhat K, learned counsel for

the respondent supports the impugned judgment.

However, he contends that First Appellate Court did not

properly considered the question of awarding the

enhanced compensation and sought for dismissal of the

revision petition.

18. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously. On such

perusal of the material on record, following points would

arise for consideration;

(i) Whether the revision petitioner/accused establishes that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus caused interference?

(ii) Whether the sentence is excessive?

(iii) What order?

19. In the case on hand, the transaction is not in

dispute. However, the contentions urged on behalf of the

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

accused is that there was an agreement by Ex.D1 and as

per the agreement, accused was not entitled to pay any

amount to the complainant.

20. Issuance of the cheque and signature therein

being that of the accused is not in dispute, the amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- lent by the complainant is established by

placing necessary material on record, the learned trial

Magistrate was justified in raising presumption in favour of

the complainant as is contemplated under Section 139 of

the Negotiable Instrument Act.

21. No doubt it is a rebuttal presumption. To rebut

the sentence, accused stepped into the witness box and

deposed before Court. He also placed on record three

documents as referred to supra.

22. On cumulative consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence placed on record by the accused, it

is found accused failed to establish that there is no legally

recoverable debt as per Ex.P1. Same is the opinion formed

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

by the learned trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First

Appellate Court.

23. This Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction is

unable to accept the contentions of the revision petitioner

that both the Courts have erred in recording the finding of

conviction against the accused. Accordingly, point No.1 is

answered in the negative.

Regarding point No.2;

24. The trial Magistrate has awarded a sum of

Rs.6,35,000/- as the fine amount and awarded a sum of

Rs.6,25,000/- as compensation. Seeking enhancement of

the compensation having been negated by the learned

First Appellate Court and matter is allowed to be rested at

that level itself by the complainant, there is no scope for

further enhancing the compensation in this revision

petition.

25. However, imposing sum of Rs.10,000/- towards

defraying expense of the State cannot be countenanced in

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

law having regard to the fact that the lis is between two

private parties and no State machinery is involved.

Accordingly, to that extent, interference is called for in this

revision petition. Hence, point No.2 is answered partly in

the negative.

Regarding point No.3 :

26. In view of the finding of this Court on the point

Nos. 1 and 2 as above, following:

ORDER

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the

accused for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument

Act, fine amount of Rs.6,35,000/- is reduced

to Rs.6,25,000/- and entire said sum of

Rs.6,25,000/- shall be paid as compensation

to the complainant, failing which, the

accused shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of ten months.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45757

iii. The fine amount directed to be paid in a

sum of Rs.10,000/- by the accused towards

defraying expenses to the State is hereby

set aside.

iv. Time is granted for the accused to pay

balance fine amount till 10.12.2024.

v. Office is directed to return the Trial Court

records along with the copy of this Order

forthwith.