Karnataka High Court
Sri. M.V. Natarajan vs Sri. Babu Rao Mudabi on 5 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1273 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.V. NATARAJAN
S/O. VENKATARAMAN
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.496, ITC ROAD
R S PALYA
BEHIND JAYALAKSHMI SCHOOL,
BENGALURU - 560033
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHANKAR M NAIK.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. BABU RAO MUDABI
S/O. CHANDRAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
by DEVIKA M RESIDING AT NO.281, 4TH CROSS,
Location: HIGH RMV 2ND STAGE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SANJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560094
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.K.HARISH., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2020
PASSED BY THE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-68) IN CRL.A.NO.1590/2018 AND
THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2017 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
CRL.RP No. 1273 of 2021
C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.15653/2014 AND THE
PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
N.I. ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
The matter is listed for admission.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused and learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant.
3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before
the Trial Court is that the petitioner and complainant were
known to each other for the last 10 - 12 years. On account of
well acquainted with each other, the accused had approached
the complainant and requested financial assistance for an
amount of Rs.35,00,000/- on 20.09.2013 for his business
purpose and accordingly, the complainant has advanced an
amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash and
that he has agreed to repay the said amount within six months.
After lapse of stipulated time and repeated requests, he had
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
issued the cheque dated 21.10.2013 and when the said cheque
was presented for encashment, the same came to be
dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds'. The
complainant informed the said fact to the accused and accused
has not responded and hence, issued legal notice on
04.01.2014 by way of registered post demanding to repay the
said amount within 15 days and the same was duly served
upon him on 07.01.2014. Despite the service of legal notice,
the accused neither repaid the amount nor gave reply, hence,
complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. Accused did not
plead guilty and hence, the trial was commenced and the
complainant in order to prove his case, examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 13. The accused also examined
himself as DW.1 and he set up the defence that both the
complainant and accused entered into a joint venture and in
that connection he gave cheque - Ex.P1 and also given the title
documents of properties as security and Trial Court having
taken note of evidence of PW.1 and documentary evidence -
Exs.P1 to 13 and also evidence of DW.1 and as no documents
were produced by the petitioner, come to the conclusion that
defence theory cannot be accepted and complainant has proved
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
the transaction by producing the documents Exs.P1 to P8 and
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I. Act and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.45,75,000/- and
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, directing to pay an amount of
Rs.45,75,000/- the accused filed an appeal before the appellate
Court and the appellate Court after having reconsidered the
material on record and also oral and documentary evidence
come to the conclusion that defenbce set up by the accused is
not reliable and justifiable in nature, since he has not produced
documentary evidence so as to prove the fact that he has
entered into a joint venture and in that connection he has given
cheque and title deeds. Without being any liability, why the
cheque and title deeds have been issued to the complainant is
not explained by the accused and hence come to the conclusion
that the Trial Court not committed any error in convicting him
and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the concurrent
findings, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that complainant in order to substantiate his case,
except the cheque, not produced any oral evidence or
documentary evidence to prove that he has lent huge sum of
Rs.35,00,000/- to the accused. There was no such transaction
and also counsel vehemently contended that the complainant
neither in his complaint nor in his evidence stated about the
capacity to lend a huge amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. He contends
that though he got marked absolute sale deed dated
18.12.2014 - Ex.P8 executed by his mother - Smt.Gundamma
in favour of M/s.New Address Construction and also produced
IT returns - Ex.P7 of his mother to show the availability of the
amount which the complainant lent to the accused but he has
not examined his mother to substantiate his case. But both the
Trial Court and Appellate Court fails to consider the said
documents. The counsel also vehemently contends that when
specific defence is taken that in connection with joint venture -
Ex.P1 cheque was given, both the Courts failed to consider the
said fact.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would contend that though such defence was taken
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
that there was joint venture between complainant and accused,
no documents are placed before the Court. Though it is
contended that the said joint venture was cancelled, nothing
placed on record regarding cancellation also and he did not
explain what made him to give cheque, if he has not borrowed
money and also why he has handed over title deeds of his
property and no explanation is forthcoming and same has been
considered by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. No
probable defence is set out to prove the same and both the
Courts considered the said facts with regard to the joint
venture and except the self styled evidence, nothing is placed
on record and hence, there is no need to interfere with the
findings of both the Courts below.
7. Having heard petitioner's counsel and also the
counsel appearing for respondent, it is the specific case of the
complainant that on account of well acquainted with each other
for last 10 to 12 years, the accused has approached the
complainant and requested for financial assistance for an
amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and same was lent on 20.09.2013
for his business purpose and he did not repay the same and
though counsel for the petitioner contends that he was only a
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
carpenter, and no need of such money, but in the cross-
examination, he categorically stated that he is the owner of JNS
builders and developers and hence, it is clear that he was doing
business of JNS Builders and Developers and hence, his
contention that he was only a carpenter cannot be accepted
and also in chief-examination, he has categorically admitted
that there was joint venture entered and at that time, he has
issued two signed cheques for the security purpose along with
cheque in question and original title deeds of the property
which are marked as Ex.P9 and 10 and said joint venture came
to be cancelled and when he was requested for return of
cheques, and original title deeds, the complainant has said that
they were misplaced, and hence, he gave complaint on
23.07.2014 and paper publication on 27.07.2014. But during
the cross-examination he deposed that joint venture was
cancelled and there was no iota of documents that he was
issued two signed blank cheuqes and for the security purpose,
he has issued valuable documents. But he again admits that he
gave the paper publication that cheques were lost. In order to
prove the factum of entering into joint venture by both the
complainant and accused, nothing is placed on record, except
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
self styled evidence, no document are placed before the Court.
In the cross-examination of PW.1 nothing is elicited with regard
to the issuance of cheque in connection with entering into joint
venture and there is no effective cross-examination with regard
to said defence is concerned and also PW.1 admits that Exs.P1
to P8 are in connection with income tax returns, Ex.P8 is a sale
deed executed by mother of complainant for a sale
consideration of Rs.94,01,175/- and in between 2013 to 2014
received an amount of Rs.54,31,563/-, when such material is
placed before the Trial Court, the same has not been rebutted
by the accused placing any document and there is no
preponderance of probability in order to accept the contention
of the petitioner. Considering the material placed on record by
the complainant, the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court, and
as there is no explanation is forthcoming with regard to
issuance of cheques and handing over original documents to
the complainant, both the Courts have held that the defence
set up by the accused is not reliable and not justifiable in
nature and since accused has not produced any documents or
evidence so as to prove the fact that he has entered into joint
venture and issued cheques and title deeds in that regard, I do
NC: 2025:KHC:5526
not find any infirmity or illegality or perversity in the finding
given by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. This Court
can exercise review jurisdiction, only when the finding is not
legal and if any infirmity in the findings of Trial Court as well as
Appellate Court and when there is no illegality in the findings
given by the both the courts, the question of exercising review
jurisdiction does not arise and hence, I do not find any merit in
the petition.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
HJ
