Karnataka High Court
Sri M Manjunath vs Sri. B. Krishnappa on 1 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 271 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.61,
NEAR SRI YELLAMMA TEMPLE
CHIKKATHOGUR
ELECTRONIC CITY POST
BANGALORE-560 100.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. SRI. B. KRISHNAPPA
Location: HIGH S/O LATE BYRAPPA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
KARNATAKA R/AT PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILALGE
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560 066.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 27.01.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
CRL.RP No. 271 of 2021
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.27/2020 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL
COURT DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.5023/2017.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. The revision petition is filed against the
concurrent finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court in C.C.No.5023/2017 on the file of Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for
convicting the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I Act and confirming in Crl.A.No.27/2020.
3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant
before the Trial Court that there was a transaction
between the complainant and respondent and it is also
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
specific case of the complainant that the accused has
agreed to pay an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- as
consideration amount by way of service charges from
complainant since there was a mutual understanding
between them. He Had paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-
on 04.10.2007 and thereafter he had issued two Cheques
and another Cheque was also dishonored and hence case
was filed. In respect of this Cheque also when the same
was presented, the same was not honored and hence
complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and this
revision petitioner was secured before the Trial Court and
he did not plead guilty and hence the complainant
examined himself as PW1 and got marked the document
Ex.P1 to Ex.P13(a) and the petitioner also examined
himself as DW1. The Trial Court having considered the
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record
available on record, comes to the conclusion that there
were transaction between them and specific pleading was
also made that an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid but
issued the Cheques and both the Cheques were
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
dishonored and in other Cheque for Rs.25,00,000/- and he
was convicted and an appeal was filed and therein matter
was settled, but in respect of this Cheque is concerned, no
settlement was arrived between parties and hence Cheque
was presented and the same was dishonored. Having
considered the admission of issuance of Cheque, the same
has not been denied and also filing of the case in
C.C.No.2735/2008 wherein judgment delivered against
this petitioner as well as joint memo filed in terms of Ex.P8
and also the admission on the part of DW1 that he had
issued the subject matter of the Cheque and not paid the
amount. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also
ordered to pay an amount of Rs.15,10,000/-. Being
aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in
Crl.A.No.27/2020 and First Appellate Court also on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record in paragraph No.30 comes to the
conclusion that Cheque was issued towards legally
recoverable debt i.e., service charge and the accused
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
failed to prove his defence. Hence, comes to the
conclusion that the material considered by the Trial Court
is not perverse and having considered the material on
record and not find any error in the order of the Trial Court
and hence confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
Being aggrieved by the said order, present revision
petition is filed.
4. The counsel for the revision petitioner also
submits that issuance of Cheque is not dispute and
counsel would contend that there was an agreement
between both of them and the said agreement was not
placed before the Court wherein he has undertaken to
solve the dispute between the parties and the same has
not been done and hence not paid the amount.
5. The counsel also would vehemently contend
that in the cross-examination categorically admitted the
agreement as well as suits are filed before the Trial Court,
but the Trial Court and First Appellate Court fails to take
note of the particular such fact and committed an error
and it requires an interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for
respondent would vehemently contend that and there was
transaction and agreement between them is not in
dispute. The zerox copy of the agreement is produced
before the Trial Court and the same has been considered
by the Trial Court and mentioned the same in the order
itself and original could not be filed in view of the cases
pending before the Court. The counsel would vehemently
contend that the Trial Court taken note of the admission
on the part of DW1 with regard to the liability of
Rs.65,00,000/- and also paid the part amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- and subsequent to compromise the matter
in respect of remaining Cheque of Rs.25,00,000/- and
against this payment of Rs.15,00,000/- making
submission that there was an undertaking to solve the
dispute, but no such disputes records are placed before
the Trial Court even though examined himself as DW1 and
nothing marked before the Trial Court and hence, question
of the contention of the revision petitioner cannot be
accepted.
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
7. Having heard the learned counsel for revision
petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent
also and records are also before this Court and this Court
also looked into the evidence of PW1 and DW1 and no
dispute with regard to the fact that there was a
transaction between the petitioner and respondent in
terms of the agreement and made the part payment and
now also counsel did not disputes the fact that an amount
of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid earlier and subsequently,
dishonor of Cheque case was also filed wherein conviction
was also passed against the petitioner. An appeal is filed
and also in appeal joint memo was filed in terms of Ex.P8
and matter was settled.
8. The counsel appearing for petitioner also not
disputes the issuance of the Cheque of this case but only
contention that cases were pending and the same was not
solved by the respondent and hence not liable to pay and
if any such document are placed before the Court, even
now also ready to pay the amount, but having considered
the material on record, no such defence was taken before
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
the Trial Court except oral testimony of the revision
petitioner who has been examined as DW1, no document
is placed before the Court with regard to the very defence
that the respondent/complainant respondent has agreed to
solve the dispute. The Trial Court also taken note of the
copy of the agreement was not placed, but at the time of
passing the judgment, reference was also made that zerox
copy is placed before the Court in paragraph No.10, 11 of
the judgment. When such being the material on record,
evidence of DW1 also very clear with regard to the
issuance of the Cheque and admission also given in the
chief evidence itself as well as in the cross-examination,
he categorically admits that he gave three Cheques and
with regard to one Cheque, matter was compromised in
Sessions Court and the present Cheque is 3rd Cheque and
also categorically admits that with regard to the cases
which are pending is concerned, he is not having any
difficulty to produce the certified copies and also though
he undertaken to produce the certified copies before the
Trial Court, no produced any document and also when the
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
question was put to him, no difficulty to make the
payment in respect of 3rd Cheque is concerned, but
contend that he has not received the amount and not a
case of receipt of the amount, the Cheque was given with
regard to the liability in terms of the agreement entered
between the petitioner and respondent and not disputed
the issuance of subject matter of the Cheque and when
such Cheque was issued and not disputed the issuance of
the Cheque.
9. The Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court
drawn presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. The
revision petitioner ought to have rebutted the same by
leading the cogent and plausible evidence. When there is a
clear admission on the part of PW1 that he had issued the
Cheque that too payment of Rs.65,00,000/- and two
payments are already made and one payment is
subsequent to the conviction when the appeal was filed
and the same is compromised and joint memo was filed
and when the petitioner admitted the issuance of Cheque
and honored the other payment and only with regard to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
this transaction is concerned, it appears that there are
cases are pending and in fact pendency of cases also
nothing is placed on record before the Trial Court when he
was examined as DW1 and I do not find any error
committed by the Trial Court in convicting and sentencing
the petitioner and the same is also on material on record
since, he has admitted the issuance of the Cheque. There
is no any plausible defence with regard to the contention
that disputes are not settled and no such material also
placed before the Court. Even though counsel appearing
for the petitioner makes the submission before this Court
that if other cases are withdrawn he is ready to pay the
amount, but with regard to the pendency of cases is
concerned also no details of documents are placed before
the Court along with this revision petition and also not
placed any such document. When such being the material
on record, I do not find any error in the finding of the Trial
Court and also in the First Appellate Court. This Court can
exercise revisional jurisdiction only having limited scope if
consideration of materials and reasons not legal and if
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4732
orders suffers from any legality and correctness then only
Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and such
circumstances is not warranted in the case on hand.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
