Karnataka High Court
Sri V Govinda vs Sri Chandrahas Ganapathi Raykar on 12 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6401
CRL.RP No. 80 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 80 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI V. GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O VARADAN,
R/AT HANUMANTHANAGAR,
SRINGERI TOWN,
SRINGERI-577139.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CHANDRAHAS GANAPATHI RAYKAR
S/O GANAPATHI,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M R/AT SHARADHA NAGAR,
Location: HIGH SRINGERI TOWN,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577139.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NISHAD S.A., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
23.10.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.157/2019
AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED
11.06.2019 IN C.C.NO.7/2017 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT SRINGERI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6401
CRL.RP No. 80 of 2021
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
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of case of complainant
before the Trial Court that accused having a good
friendship with the complainant since several years and
complainant approached him for a financial assistance for
an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of hand loan in the 3rd week
of June -2016 and he has paid the same and agreed to
repay the same within 3 months, but he did not repay the
same and on demand, he gave a post dated Cheque dated
24.09.2016 and on presentation of the same, it was
dishonored and legal notice was issued and inspite of the
notice given, the accused not paid the amount and also
not given the reply. Hence, complaint was filed and
cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the
NC: 2025:KHC:6401
Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and hence,
complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and revision petitioner not lead any
defense evidence. The Trial Court considering the oral
evidence and Ex.P1-Cheque, Ex.P3-legal notice and Ex.P5-
postal acknowledgment, comes to the conclusion that no
reply was given and also not rebutted the case of the
complainant under Section 139 of N.I Act and convicted
the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by the conviction and
sentence, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate
Court in Crl.A.No.157/2019. The First Appellate Court on
re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, accepted the case of the complainant
and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not
committed any error in convicting and sentencing and
dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the orders,
present revision petition is filed before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:6401
4. The learned counsel for revision petitioner
would vehemently contend that both the Courts
disregarded the defense of the accused and even though
he was cross examined and answers are elicited and the
same has not been considered by both the Courts and
committed an error in drawing presumption under Section
139 of N.I Act.
5. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for
respondent would vehemently contend that the transaction
was taken place in the year 2013 and almost a decade has
been elapsed and even though the case was filed in the
year 2017, the respondent could not able to get the
money and also no defense evidence was lead before the
Trial Court. Hence, it does not requires any interference.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for revision
petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent,
no rebuttal evidence before the Trial Court and no doubt
the law is settled that even without entering into the
witness box, the accused/revision petitioner can rebut the
NC: 2025:KHC:6401
evidence of complainant, but no such answer is elicited
from the mouth of the PW1 and Ex.P1-Cheque is admitted
and notice was also issued to the petitioner and no reply
was given. When no rebuttal evidence, unless the accused
makes out any preponderance of probabilities with regard
to the defense is concerned, question of interfering does
not arise by exercising the revisional jurisdiction and no
merit in the petition.
7. At this juncture, the counsel for revision
petitioner seeks three months time to make the payment.
Having taken note of the matter was of the year 2013,
more than a decade has been elapsed and now question of
granting 3 weeks time to make payment of remaining
amount does not arise. However, counsel submits that
50% of the amount has been paid and remaining amount
will be paid within three months.
8. The counsel for respondent opposes the said
submission and contend that this complainant is running
NC: 2025:KHC:6401
before the different Courts for recovery of the amount and
no such time could be granted.
9. Having heard the revision petitioner's counsel
and also the counsel for respondent, it is appropriate to
grant six weeks time to make the payment of remaining
amount. If payment is not made within six weeks, the
revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months as ordered by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.7/2017 dated 11.06.2019. Accordingly, the petition
is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
