Karnataka High Court
Nagappa N vs N H Omprakash on 17 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6899
CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. NAGAPPA N.,
S/O BANDI KANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
STENOGRPAHER
R/AT PWD QUARTERS, R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU-560020
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. N.H. OMPRAKASH
S/O N.N. HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
Digitally signed LAB TECHNICIAN
by DEVIKA M
N.E.S. PHARMACY COLLEGE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O KIRTHI NAGAR
KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA-580028
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AS SHIVAMOGGA DATED
18.05.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.129/2019 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE JMFC-II, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.891/2016,
DATED 20.05.2019.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6899
CRL.RP No. 1140 of 2021
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. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner
and also the learned counsel for respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed challenging the
order of enhancement made by the First Appellate Court in
the appeal filed by the accused. The counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner would submits that in the judgment
of Apex Court in case of Kalamani Tex and Anr V/s
P.Balasumanian held that the respondent, nevertheless,
cannot take advantage of the above cited principles so as
to seek compensation. The record indicates that neither
did the respondent ask for compensation before the High
Court nor he has chosen to challenge the High Court's
judgment. Since, he has accepted the High Court's verdict,
his claim for compensation stands impliedly overturned.
The respondent, in any case, is entitled to receive the
Cheque amount of Rs.11.20 lakhs which the appellant has
NC: 2025:KHC:6899
already deposited with the Registry of this Court. The main
grievance of the revision petitioner is also in the absence
of any appeal by the complainant, the First Appellate Court
ought not to have enhanced the fine amount.
3. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the First
Appellate Court while enhancing the fine amount in
paragraph No.22 of the judgment assigned the reasons for
enhancement and hence, it does not requires any
interference.
4. Having heard the revision petitioner's counsel
and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, the
point that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
1) Whether the First Appellate Court
committed an error in enhancing the
fine amount in the appeal filed by the
accused without any appeal or revision
as against the order of the Trial Court
and whether it requires interference of
this Court?
2) What Order?
NC: 2025:KHC:6899
5. Having heard the respective counsels and
also on perusal of material on record, the factual matrix of
case of the complainant/respondent before the Trial Court
that both of them are friends and accused has sought
financial assistance for the domestic purpose to the tune
of Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of January-2011. The
complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and he
has also agreed to give back the same within a short
period of six months and he did not repay the amount and
hence, after lapse of one month that is in the first week of
September-2011, the complainant again requested for
repayment of amount and accused had issued the Cheque
dated 07.09.2011 and when the same was presented, the
same was dishonored and returned with an endorsement
'Funds insufficient' and he did not comply with the demand
and hence cognizance was taken and he was secured
before the Trial Court. The complainant in support of his
case, examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P14. On the other hand, the accused also examined
NC: 2025:KHC:6899
himself as DW1 and not marked any document. The Trial
Court having considered the material on record and also
taking into note of the Cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and
ordered to defray Rs.5,000/- to the State and remaining
amount of Rs.1,25,000/- has to be paid to the complainant
as compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, when the
accused files an appeal before the appellate Court, the
same was enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,05,000/- and
hence the same was challenged before this Court.
6. The main grievance of the petitioner also that
in the appeal filed by the accused, the First Appellate
Court ought not to have granted the enhanced amount
and admittedly there is no any appeal or revision filed by
the complainant against the sentence and also for
enhancement of the same on the ground that the fine
amount ordered by the Trial Court is very meager. When
there is no such appeal or revision by the complainant and
that too in the appeal filed by the accused, the First
Appellate Court ought not to have enhanced the same
NC: 2025:KHC:6899
instead of that considered the reasons given by the Trial
Court whether the same is in accordance with law or not
considering the factual aspects as well as question of law
and instead of committed an error in enhancing the same
in the appeal filed by the accused and the same is
erroneous and hence, it requires interference of this Court
and the finding of the First Appellate Court is erroneous
and same also suffers from legal infirmity and not
inconsonance with the settled law that in an appeal filed
by the accused, there cannot be enhanced sentence that
too in the absence of any appeal or revision by the
complainant. The counsel also relied upon the judgment
referred supra and the same is also aptly applicable to the
case on hand and hence it requires interference of this
Court and I answer the point as 'partly affirmative' in
coming to the conclusion that First Appellate Court
committed an error.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:6899
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition allowed in part.
ii) The impugned order passed by the First
Appellate Court modifying the fine amount
enhancing the same to Rs.2,05,000/- is set-
aside and order of the Trial Court is restored.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
