Karnataka High Court
T H Manjunatha vs G D Srirangaiah on 22 October, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
CRL.RP No. 160 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.160 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. T H MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE T D HULLURAIAH
AGED 47 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KOTHI THOPU
NEAR OLD TILES FACTORY, TUMKURU
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.R. SATEESH FOR SRI N SURESHA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. G D SRIRANGAIAH
S/O DODDATHIMMAIAH
TEACHER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDENT OF GADDOBANAHALLI
THEETHA (P)
Digitally KORATAGERE TALUK-572129
signed by
MALATESH ...RESPONDENT
KC (BY SRI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
KARNATAKA CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2021
IN CRL.A.NO.5007/2020 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI AND THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, KORATAGERE IN C.C.NO.359/2010 DATED 24.02.2020
BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
CRL.RP No. 160 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Sateesh appearing for N. Suresha, counsel for
the revision petitioner and Sri Subhash Chandra Bose, learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in
C.C.No.359/2010, on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Koratagere, confirmed in Crl.A.No.5007/2020, on the file of IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru-Madhugiri,
has filed this present revision.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200
Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of the offence by the accused
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. It is contended that Manjunatha Finance and
Investment, represented by its managing partner who was
running the financial business by lending the money to the
public. Accused was getting the deposit from his relatives and
partners. Likewise the accused has taken deposit from
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
complainant and his relatives and friends under different plans
introduced by him.
5. Accused being the managing partner, has assured
the complainant to pay interest at 15% p.a. and complainant
personally deposited sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.02.2006 and
a cash certificate was issued by the accused in this regard.
Likewise friend of the complainant by name Sri Naryanappa
invested sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and another friend by name
Lakshmikanthaiah invested a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Accused also
issued receipts with regard to those payments.
6. When there was no repayment, complainant
demanded the repayment of the deposit amount. At that
juncture, accused said to have issued a post dated cheque for
the maturity amount along with interest by collecting the
original bond from the complainant in the month of May 2007.
Cheque was remitted to the bank for encashment and the same
was dishonored with an endorsement 'account closed'.
7. Thereafter, the legal notice was issued to the
complainant, but accused has failed to receive the registered
cover and therefore, the complainant sought for action against
the accused.
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
8. Learned Trial Magistrate after concluding the
necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the
plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant,
complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on
record seven documentary evidence which were exhibited and
marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7, comprising of original dishonored
cheque dated 31.03.2010, original endorsement issued by the
bank, returned postal cover, copy of the legal notice, RPAD
cover and office copy of the legal notice.
10. Complainant also examined Sathyanarayana as
P.W.2 on his behalf.
11. Detailed cross-examination of complainant and
P.W.2 did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the
version of the complainant or to dislodge the presumption.
12. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 a suggestion was
made that P.W.1 has not produced any documents to show that
Narayanappa and Lakshmikanthaiaha have also invested
money with the accused.
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
13. There was no suggestion made in the cross-
examination of P.W.1 that P.W.1 has not at all invested the
money in the accused firm.
14. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, he admits that
Ex.P.1 is the cheque that has been issued by the Indian
Overseas Bank and he cannot say whether account bearing
No.100 has been closed or not without verifying the records.
15. Thereafter learned Trial Magistrate recorded the
accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
wherein accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances.
16. Insofar as rebuttal evidence is concerned accused
got examined himself as D.W.1. In his examination in chief he
has stated that he worked as managing director of Manjuatha
Finance and Investment. He has also stated that as per the
guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, the finance business
was conducted. He denied the suggestion that the signature in
Ex.P.1 cheque is his signature. He also denied that Ex.P.1 is not
issued in his individual capacity.
17. In his cross-examination, he admits that
Manjunatha S/o T.D. Hulluraiah, R/o Kothi Topu, Tumakuru is
himself. He admits that account bearing No.100 in Indian
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
Overseas Bank, Tumakuru, belongs to his firm and the said firm
has also got an account bearing No.394 in Karnataka Bank. He
admits that there is a resolution that the bank account is to be
operated by himself and Ravishankar. He also admits that after
the deposits were matured, through cheque matured amount
would be disbursed to the depositors. He has pleaded
ignorance as to the number of deposits and amount of
repayment made to the depositors. He admits that bank has
seized all the documents. He also admits that he can produce
the documents in respect of Manjunatha Finance and
Investments Limited. He also admitted that said Manjunatha
Finance Investments Limited is to issue receipts and bonds for
deposited amount. He admits that the seal found in Ex.P.1 is
belongs to his office and he can produce it before the Court.
18. Based on the aforesaid material evidence on record,
learned Trial Magistrate after hearing the arguments of both
sides convicted the accused and ordered to pay fine of
Rs.4,55,000/- of which sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was ordered to be
paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of
Rs.5,000/- as defraying expenses of the State.
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
19. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
appeal in Crl.A.No.5007/2020.
20. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records heard the parties in detail and dismissed
the appeal of the accused.
21. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court in this revision petition.
22. Sri Sateesh, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition
contended that convicting the accused is improver and sought
for allowing the revision.
23. Per contra, Sri Subhash Chandra Bose supports the
impugned judgment.
24. Having heard the arguments following points would
arise for consideration:
1) Whether the accused establishes patent factual
error resulting in the judgment of the Trial Court
as perverse so as to call for interference in this
revision?
2) Whether the sentence is excessive?
3) What order?
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
25. Regarding point No.1: in the case on hand, from
the material evidence on record, issuance of cheque is not in
dispute. Accused no doubt took the contentions that the
signature found in Ex.P.1 is not his signature, but did not
establish the same by placing necessary evidence on record.
26. Mere denial of the signature is not a ground to hold
Ex.P.1 is not signed by him.
27. Further, accused has taken a contention that no
money was deposited either by the complainant or by
Lakshmikanthaiah. But to establish the same, he did not
produce any document like statement of account though he
says that the accounts are with him.
28. Further, accused has suggested to P.W.1 that the
cheque has been issued. If that is so, some positive action
should have been taken by the accused by filing a criminal
complaint against the complainant. No such effort has been
made by the accused.
29. Admittedly, the legal notice is not claimed by the
accused.
30. When the returned cover with an endorsement not
claimed by the addressee is confronted to accused in his cross-
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
examination, he denies the very same endorsement, but he
admits that the address shown in the returned cover is his
address.
31. He has also stated that one Ravishankar was also
operating the account of the accused firm. He failed to
examine the Ravishankar to establish the same.
32. P.W.2 is the bank manager who has been examined
on behalf of the complainant to establish that the cheque
issued by the accused belongs to the accused.
33. In his cross-examination except suggestion that the
said cheque is issued from the Savings Bank account bearing
No.100 belonging to the accused, no other useful material is
elicited.
34. P.W.2 could have been cross-examined by the
accused to establish that apart from accused, Ravishankar was
also required to sign the cheque. No such effort is made.
35. D.W.1/accused has admitted in his cross-
examination that he has got resolution that accused and
Ravishankar are entitled to operate the bank account. But, no
such resolution is also placed on record.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
36. In the absence of any satisfactory rebuttal evidence
placed on record by the accused, the learned Trial Magistrate
was justified in raising the presumption by accepting the oral
testimony coupled with the documentary evidence, there is
some record on behalf of the complainant and has rightly
convicted the accused.
37. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has re-
appreciated the material evidence on record and did not agree
with the contentions urged on behalf of the accused in the
judgment dated 18.12.2021.
38. In paragraph Nos.22 to 25 the learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court has bestowed his attention to the technical
grounds urged on behalf of the accused and has negated the
same.
39. This Court having regard to the limited power under
the revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects
of the matter unless the revision petitioner makes out the
patent factual error. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the
negative.
40. Regarding point No.2:Insofar as the sentence is
concerned, cheque amount is Rs.4,50,000/-. As against the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
same, the learned Trial Magistrate has imposed fine of
Rs.4,55,000/-, of which sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was ordered to
be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum
of Rs.5000/- towards defraying expenses.
41. Since the lis is privy to the parties and no State
machinery is involved, awarding sum of Rs.5,000/- towards
defraying expenses is needs to be set aside.
Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the
affirmative.
42. Regarding point No.3: In view of findings of this
Court on point Nos.1 and 2, following order is passed;
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount
awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate,
confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum
of Rs.4,55,000/- is reduced to sum of
Rs.4,50,000/-.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42500
(iii) Entire amount of Rs.4,50,000/- is ordered be
paid to the complainant as compensation.
(iv) Imposing the fine of Rs.5,000/- towards the
defraying expenses of the State is hereby set
aside.
(v) Time is granted for the accused to pay the
remaining amount till 30th November 2024,
failing which the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MR
