Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. S. Satish vs Sri. K. S. Uttaiah on 10 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5943
CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1014 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P.S. SATISH,
S/O. SHASHI P.S.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GUYYA VILLAGE AND POST,
SIDDAPUR, VIRAJAPET,
KODAGU - 571 218.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K.S.UTTAIAH,
S/O. KECHETTIRA SOMAIAH,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M R/AT KADAGADAL VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH MADIKERI TALUK,
COURT OF KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. KRISHNA MOORTHY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ANDORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 24.02.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.2224/2013
BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI AND THE
JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN
CRL.A.NO.32/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FROM THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5943
CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2016
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the Trial Court having considered
the evidence of the complainant/respondent, convicted and
sentenced the petitioner for six months simple imprisonment
and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the State as well as to
pay the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the complainant.
3. The same was challenged before the Appellate Court
and the Appellate Court on re-assessing the material available
on record, dismissed the appeal and hence the present revision
petition is filed before this Court.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that there was an agreement between the petitioner
and the respondent for felling and cutting the trees and there
was no any road to transport the same and hence the petitioner
could not transport the same. The learned counsel admits that
he had obtained the felling order and cut the trees, but contend
NC: 2025:KHC:5943
that as there was no road, he could not transport the same.
The learned counsel contend that the Trial Court sentenced to
imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay the
compensation and fine and the same is not correct and the
order suffers from its legality and correctness and hence this
Court has to interfere with the sentence of the Trial Court. The
learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the
admission given by P.W.1 in the cross-examination. P.W.1
categorically admits that the liability to pay Ex.P.1 cheque is
only after lifting of first load of timber and when the same was
not lifted, the question of payment does not arise. The learned
counsel contend that there is an admission that in Ex.P.1
signature and handwriting are different. P.W.1 has admitted
that in order to go to his coffee plantation, there is no any road
and there is only a pathway and also admits that in terms of
Ex.P.6 he has undertaken to provide the road. Inspite of it, the
Trial Court convicted the petitioner and the same is confirmed
by the Appellate Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of D.W.1.
D.W.1 categorically admitted that first load of timber was lifted.
When such admission was given, the question of no road to lift
NC: 2025:KHC:5943
the timber cannot be accepted. He categorically admits that
Ex.P.1 cheque was given after lifting of first load. Hence, it does
not require any interference and the very argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The
learned counsel contend that the Trial Court only ordered to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and the
same also does not require interference.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering
the material available on record, the points that arise for the
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether both the Courts committed an error in
convicting and sentencing the revision
petitioner and whether the same requires
interference of this Court by exercising the
revisional jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
Point (i):
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it
is not in dispute that there was an agreement between the
parties in terms of Ex.P.6 to cut and remove the trees in the
coffee plantation. It is not in dispute that the timber was cut
NC: 2025:KHC:5943
after obtaining the felling order from the concerned department.
It is also not in dispute that the cheque Ex.P.1 was issued. The
main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the timber was not transported since there was no road. But
there was an admission that Ex.P.1 cheque was given after
lifting of first load of timber. When such admission was given,
the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted.
8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the Trial Court convicted and sentenced for
imprisonment as well as directed to pay the compensation.
Having taken note of the factual aspects of the case, the very
object of bringing amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act
is for the speedy recovery of the amount, in case any cheque is
bounced, but now it takes decades. In the case on hand, C.C.
was registered in 2013 and now we are in 2025 and more than a
decade has been elapsed. The Court has to take note of the
contract between the petitioner and the respondent and there is
an admission that entire load was not lifted. But the fact is that
the timber was cut and removed and there is an admission with
regard to lifting of first load. When such being the case, it is
appropriate to modify the order of the Trial Court with regard to
NC: 2025:KHC:5943
punishment is concerned. This Court can exercise the
discretion, if the petitioner makes the payment in favour of the
respondent within a period of four weeks from today and no
need to undergo imprisonment. If the petitioner fails to make
the payment within four weeks from today, the order of the Trial
Court will prevail. The petitioner is directed to make the
payment in favour of the respondent within four weeks from
today, without fail. If the petitioner fails to make the payment,
then he will not enure the benefit of this order and he has to
undergo simple imprisonment of six months as well as to make
the payment in favour of the respondent.
9. The learned counsel for both the parties submit that
some payments are made when order was passed by the
Appellate Court and this Court. Hence, the Trial Court is
directed to release the amount, which is in deposit before the
Trial Court, in favour of the respondent, on proper identification.
10. With the above observations, the criminal revision
petition is disposed of
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
