Karnataka High Court
M/S Royal County vs Sri.G.V. Devendra Reddy on 16 October, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41983
CRL.RP No. 267 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 267 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. ROYAL COUNTY,
NO.895/1, SKANDA, 14TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 86.
RE. BY ITS PARTNER,
V. BHASKAR REDDY.
2. SRI V. BHASKAR REDDY,
S/O BALA VENKATAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
M/S. ROYAL COUNTY,
NO.895/1, SKANDA 14TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI CHANDAN B.K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
MALATESH SRI G.V. DEVENDRA REDDY,
KC AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
Location: S/O SRI VENKATARAMAREDDY,
HIGH R/AT NO.1526, 4TH 'A' CROSS,
COURT OF CHAMUNDI NAGAR,
KARNATAKA
VENKATASWAMAPPA LAYOUT,
R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR VINDHYALA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED BY LIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41983
CRL.RP No. 267 of 2020
IN CRL.A.NO.1518/2017, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE DATED 27.09.2017 PASSED BY XII ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.37881/2010.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Chandan B.K., learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri Bhadravadi Siddeswara for revision petitioners.
2. None appears for the respondent.
3. The accused, who has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act') in C.C.No.37881/2010 and
ordered to pay a fine amount of Rs.3,56,700/-, out of which a
sum of Rs.3,53,000/- as compensation and balance amount of
Rs.3,700/- towards defraying expenses of the State confirmed
in Crl.A.No.1518/2017 has preferred this revision petition.
4. Facts which are most essential for 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 punishable under
NC: 2024:KHC:41983
Section 138 of the N.I.Act by contending that accused is known
to the complainant and for the purpose of formation of layout in
a landed property and accused received the money from the
complainant in the guise of allotting site measuring 1,500
square feet. The complainant believing the version of the
accused, paid a sum of Rs.2,62,500/- at the time of execution
of the agreement and when there was no sale deed executed,
the complainant set to have demanded the advance amount
and on that juncture, accused passed on two cheques which
were on presentation came to be dishounoured with funds
sufficient. Legal notice was not complied nor replied by the
accused. Therefore, the complainant sought for action against
the accused.
5. Learned trial Magistrate, on completing the
necessary formalities, summoned the accused. The accused
appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty. Therefore,
trial was held.
6. In order to prove the case, the complainant got
examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record 13 documents,
which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P13 comprising
NC: 2024:KHC:41983
of dishounoured cheques, Bank endorsement, office copy of the
legal notice, postal receipts, agreement of sale and receipts for
having paid the advance amount.
7. In the cross-examination of PW.1, no useful material is
elicited so as to disbelieve the version of PW.1.
8. Thereafter, the accused statement as contemplated
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the accused
has denied all the incriminating circumstances.
9. In order to rebut the presumption available to the
complainant, the accused got examined himself as DW.1, but
did not place any material evidence on record in the
cross-examination of the accused. He admits that there was an
agreement entered into and the advance amount was received
by him.
10. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge heard the parties
and convicted the accused as aforesaid.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred
an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.1518/2017.
NC: 2024:KHC:41983
12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the parties in detail and dismissed
the appeal filed by the accused.
13. Thereafter, the accused is before this Court in this
revision petition.
14. Sri Chandan B.K., learned counsel reiterating the
grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on
record and there was no proper recitation of the contract of
agreement to sell and therefore, the accused was not liable to
pay the amount borrowed under the cheques and therefore, the
conviction order is bad in law.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent has remained
absent. Therefore, this Court perused the materials on record
meticulously in the light of the argument put forth on behalf of
the revision petitioner.
16. Admittedly, the cheques were issued by the
accused and signature is found therein that of the accused and
the same is dishounoured for want of funds. The agreement of
NC: 2024:KHC:41983
sale and the receipts are not in serious dispute. Therefore, the
payment of the advance amount is evidenced by not only the
oral evidence of PW.1, but also from the documentary evidence
placed on record.
17. Till the date of issuance of cheques, the accused is
not able to develop the land and allot a site as agreed by him.
Therefore, the complainant was compelled to rescind the
contract of agreement to sell and seek for the return of
advance amount for which the cheques were issued by the
accused, which were not hounoured.
18. Under such circumstances, the presumption available
to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act has been
rightly invoked by the trial Magistrate and the defence evidence
was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to
the complainant and rightly convicted the accused.
19. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on proper
way of appreciation dismissed the appeal. However, it is
noticed that a sum of Rs.3,700/- is ordered to be paid as fine
amount towards defraying expenses of the State, which cannot
NC: 2024:KHC:41983
be countenance in law in view of the fact that lis is privy to the
parties and no State machinery is involved.
20. Accordingly to that extent, matter requires
interference by this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part.
ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the
compensation amount in a sum of 3,53,000/- is maintained and
a sum of Rs.3,700/- ordered to defraying expenses of the State
is hereby set aside.
iii) Revision petitioner is granted time till 10.11.2024 to
pay the balance amount.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
CPN
