Karnataka High Court
D Kempegowda vs Sathyanarayana H on 23 October, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42693
CRL.RP No. 575 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.575 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
D. KEMPEGOWDA,
S/O LATE DEVE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/O I H L C, 12/A,
NEAR CHANDRALAYA,
HUTHA COLONY,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 245,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B. S. HARISH., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SATHYANARAYANA H.,
Digitally signed by S/O LATE HUCHAPPA REDDI,
ANJALI M AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of R/O 3RD CROSS,
Karnataka RAJAPPA LAYOUT, JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 245,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANATHAAPADMANABHA G.N., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
03.09.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, AT BHADRAVATHI, IN C.C.NO.171/2022 AND ALSO
CONFIRMING THE SAME BY ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE IV
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SHIMOGA, SITTING AT
BHADRAVATHI, IN CRL.A.NO.5046/2022 DATED 09.03.2023
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42693
CRL.RP No. 575 of 2023
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED
AGAINST HIM.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.B S. Harish, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner.
2. The accused is the revision petitioner who suffered
an order of conviction in CC No.171/2022 dated
03.09.2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Bhadravathi, and ordered to pay a fine of
Rs.2,50,000/- which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.5046/2022 dated 09.03.2023 on the file of IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, has
preferred this revision petition.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost
necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as
under:
3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section
200 of Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of offence
NC: 2024:KHC:42693
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (herein after referred as 'NI Act') by
contending that the accused and complainant are
acquainted to each other and they had a cordial
relationship. Accused said to have borrowed a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.01.2016 for the purpose of clearing
the hand loan with a promise to repay the same within a
period of three months.
3.2 Towards repayment of said hand loan, accused
said to have issued a cheque bearing No.516688, dated
20.04.2016 in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on
Corporation Bank, Jannapura Branch, Bhadravathi. The
said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with
an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, a legal
notice was issued. The notice issued through registered
post is not claimed by the accused and there was no
compliance to the calling of notice and therefore, action
was taken against the accused by the complainant.
4. The learned Trial Magistrate after completing
necessary formalities, summoned the accused and
NC: 2024:KHC:42693
recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore,
the trial was held.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant,
complainant got examined as P.W.1 and relied on six
documentary evidence on record which were exhibited and
marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.6 comprising of dishonored
cheque, bank endorsement, office copy of the legal notice,
postal cover and postal receipt.
6. Detailed cross-examination of P.W.1 did not
yield any positive material so as to dislodge the
presumption or to doubt the case of the complainant.
7. Thereafter, such a statement was recorded as is
contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Wherein the
accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances.
8. Accused also got examined himself as D.W.1
and placed on record and no documentary evidence were
placed on record.
9. During the pendency of the case, an application
was filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument
NC: 2024:KHC:42693
Act. Wherein, accused has agreed to settle the matter. But
failed to do so. In fact such an application was also
marked as exhibit before the Trial Magistrate vide Ex.P.6.
10. Taking note of these aspects of the matter,
learned Trail Magistrate convicted the accused and
imposed the fine of Rs.2,50,000/- and entire sum of Rs.
2,50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the
complainant.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed
an appeal before the District Court in Criminal appeal
No.5046/2022.
12. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court
after securing records, re-appreciated the material on
record and dismissed the appeal of the accused.
13. Being further aggrieved by the same, the
accused is before this Court in this revision.
14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition
contended that the both the Courts have not properly
NC: 2024:KHC:42693
appreciate the material evidence on record and sought for
admitting the revision petition for further consideration.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent not present
today. Respondent in person present and submit that
interim order granted by the Court is not complied till
today.
16. In view of the above factual aspects of the
matter, this Court pursued the material on record
meticulously.
17. On such perusal of record, by filing an
application under Section 147 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, which was marked as Ex.P.6, accused has
admitted the liability. But had sought for time to pay the
amount covered under cheque.
18. Despite granting sufficient time, the accused
failed to comply with the agreed terms of settlement,
which resulted in convicting the accused. Learned Trial
Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court
NC: 2024:KHC:42693
have rightly re-appreciated said aspect and thus, justified
in convicting the accused.
19. In the teeth of Ex.P.6, this Court does not find
any legal infirmity or perversity to admit the revision for
further consideration.
20. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Revision petition is meritless. Accordingly,
admission declined and revision petition is
dismissed.
ii. Time is granted to pay the balance amount
till 30.11.2024, failing which the order of
Trial Magistrate Stands restored.
iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
withdrawn by the complainant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AMA
