Karnataka High Court

Sri Chandrappa vs Sri N S Ajjappa on 21 October, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                       -1-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:42200
                                               CRL.RP No. 64 of 2017




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.64 OF 2017
            BETWEEN:

            1.    SRI CHANDRAPPA
                  S/O BASAPPA
                  AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
                  AGRICULTURIST
                  RESIDENT OF KACCHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                  JAGALUR TALUK - 577528
                  DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
                                                       ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE)
            AND:

            1.    SRI N S AJJAPPA
                  S/O N SIDDAPPA,
                  AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                  BASAVESHWARAKHANAVALI, &
Digitally         LORRY OWNER,
signed by
MALATESH          R/O RAMALAYA NILAYA,
KC                JAGALUR TOWN,
Location:         JAGALUR - 577258
HIGH                                                ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF    (BY SRI PRUTHVEEN PRAHALAD KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
                 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
            CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
            C.C.NO.367/2009 DATED 13.11.2014 BY THE LEARNED JMFC,
            JAGALUR AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED I
            ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., DAVANGERE IN CRL.A.NO.150/2014
            DATED 15.07.2015 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETR. IN
            C.C.NO.367/2009 BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
            THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:42200
                                       CRL.RP No. 64 of 2017




     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                        ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri A.C.Balaraj, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. Revision Petition by the accused who suffered an order of

conviction dated 13.11.2014 passed in C.C.No.367/2009 on the

file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Jagaluru, whereby, accused

was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and ordered to pay fine

of Rs.2,05,000/-, of which, Rs.2,00,000/- was ordered to be

paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/-

towards defraying expenses of the State, confirmed in Criminal

Appeal No.150/2014 dated 15.07.2015 on the file of the I Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere.

3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the case are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking action against the accused

NC: 2024:KHC:42200

for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, contending that accused

borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 24.05.2008 with a

promise to repay the same in a short period. Towards

repayment, accused issued two cheques in a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- each which came to be dishonoured with an

endorsement 'insufficient funds'.

4. Legal notice was issued which was not complied with by

the accused and therefore, complainant sought for action.

5. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary

formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea.

Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to prove his case, complainant got himself

examined as P.W.1 and another witness by name Hanumesha

Gonnalli as P.W.2 and placed on record as many as fourteen

documents exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14,

comprising of dishonoured cheques, bank endorsement,

challan, legal notice, postal receipt, COP copy, postal cover,

postal receipt, R.C. book, letter, pahani, tax paid receipt.

NC: 2024:KHC:42200

7. Detailed cross-examination of witnesses examined on

behalf of the complainant did not yield any positive material so

as to disbelieve the case of the complainant or to rebut the

presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge recorded the statement of

the accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, wherein, the accused denied all the

incriminatory material.

9. Subsequent thereto, learned Trial Judge heard the

arguments of the parties and as there was no defence evidence

placed on record, convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal

before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.150/2014.

11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing

the records, heard the parties in detail and on re-appreciation

of the material on record, dismissed the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:42200

12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before

this Court in this revision petition.

13. Sri A.C.Balaraj, 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 evidence on record and sought to

allow the revision petition.

14. The respondent has engaged the services of Sri

Pruthveen P.K, advocate, who is absent today.

15. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record

meticulously.

16. On such perusal of the material on record, issuance of the

cheque and signature found therein is that of the accused is not

in dispute. Admittedly, there is material evidence on record

placed by the complainant that accused borrowed hand loan

and to establish the same, he not only deposed, but also

examined one witness on his behalf. Therefore, learned Trial

Judge was justified in raising the presumption in favour of the

NC: 2024:KHC:42200

complainant as is contemplated under Section 139 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

17. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the

presumption, no contra evidence is placed on record by the

accused either by examining himself or by placing any

documentary evidence on record.

18. Under such circumstances, learned Trial Judge is justified

in convicting the accused as aforesaid.

19. On the question of sentence, Rs.2,05,000/- is ordered to

be paid as compensation of which Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to

be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum

of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be appropriated towards defraying

expenses of the State.

20. Since the lis is privy to the parties and no State

machinery is involved, awarding Rs.5,000/- towards defraying

expenses of the State needs interference by this Court.

21. Accordingly, the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:42200

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in

part.

(i) While maintaining the conviction of the

accused for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881, fine of Rs.2,05,000/- is reduced

to Rs.2,00,000/-. Entire amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as

compensation to the complainant.

(ii) Time is granted to the accused to pay the

fine amount till 15th November 2024, failing

which, the accused shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months, as

ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate,

confirmed by the learned Judge in the First

Appellate Court.

(iii) Amount in a sum of Rs.5,000/- imposed by

the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the

learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

NC: 2024:KHC:42200

towards defraying expenses of the State is

hereby set-aside.