Karnataka High Court
Sri B M Rudrappa vs Sri G Karibasappa on 7 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:328
CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 836 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B.M.RUDRAPPA
S/O MURIGEPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
SHAGALE VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK
DAVANAGERE-571 602.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI G. KARIBASAPPA
S/O G. DYAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGRICULTURIST,
Location: HIGH R/O D.NO.1852/118, PUNYAKOTI,
COURT OF NEAR VIDYANANDA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
KARNATAKA VINAYAKA EXTENSION
SARASWATI NAGARA, NITTUVALLI,
DAVANAGERE-571 107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KUMARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.3022/2015 DATED
30.08.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC- FIRST COURT,
DAVANAGERE AND IN CRL.A.NO.99/2018 DATED 12.08.2018
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:328
CRL.RP No. 836 of 2020
ON THE FILE FO THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 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
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent. This matter is listed for admission
and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties,
the matter is taken up for final disposal, since the records are
received from the Trial Court.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The Trial
Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the N.I. Act
for short) sentencing the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.1,65,000/.
In default of payment of fine, the petitioner to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine
amount, an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is ordered to be paid to
complainant and the remaining fine of Rs.5,000/- shall vest
with the State. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is
NC: 2025:KHC:328
filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the
petitioner is before this Court in this revision.
3. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner in this revision is that, inspite of Ex.P1-cheque is
altered, the same is not considered by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court also not appreciated the said fact into
consideration. A bare perusal of document of Ex.P1-cheque is
very clear that amount in words has been altered and instead
of Rs.1,50,000/- it was altered as Rs.1,15,000/- and both the
Courts failed to consider the said document. Hence, it requires
interference.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that except
the suggestion regarding alteration, nothing is elicited in the
cross-examination of P.W.1. Learned counsel would contend
that amount is correctly mentioned as Rs.1,50,000/- and there
is alteration in mentioning the amount and would further
NC: 2025:KHC:328
submit that a defence is taken during the course of cross-
examination that cheque was stolen from the shop of petitioner
and the said suggestion was also denied and contra
suggestions are made. At one breath, it was suggested that
cheque was stolen from the shop and in another breath,
suggestion was made that it was altered and both the Courts,
taking note of the material available on record, rightly
convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I. Act and cheque amount is Rs.1,50,000/-
and the amount of compensation ordered is Rs.1,60,000/-.
Hence, it does not require any interference.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal of the
material available on record, the grounds which have been
urged in this revision petition is that there is a material
altercation of Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1, amount is mentioned
as Rs.1,50,000/-, but while mentioning the same in words, it is
mentioned as 'Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand Only' and
suggestion was also made in this regard and the said
suggestion was denied. However, the petitioner not denies the
very issuance of cheque and the cheque is also issued with
NC: 2025:KHC:328
signature and seal and the only defence taken in the cross-
examination is that cheque was stolen from the shop of the
petitioner and the same was denied during the course of cross-
examination. No doubt, in the cross-examination, an answer is
elicited that at the time of transaction, no other person was
present, it is also elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 that earlier
also, he was transacting with them in faith and categorically
says that amount which was received earlier was repaid and
even suggestion was also made that there was transaction
between the petitioner and the respondent from the last 15 to
20 years. When such suggestion is made regarding transaction
is concerned, it is clear that in between the petitioner and the
respondent, there was a financial transaction from the last 15
to 20 years and they were having acquaintance with each
other.
6. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that there is material altercation, the same is apparent
on record. Though the cheque is issued for Rs.1,50,000/-, but
in words, it is mentioned as 'Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand
Only' and there is an overwriting and the same cannot take
away the case of the respondent, since the petitioner has not
NC: 2025:KHC:328
disputed the very signature available in Ex.P1-cheque. It is
also important to note that when legal notice dated 05.04.2013
was issued, the same has returned with an endorsement, the
petitioner refused to receive the notice and the said fact is also
not disputed. When such material is available before the Court
and in 313 statement also, as contended by the learned
counsel for the respondent, even the petitioner did not putforth
his contention that cheque is issued for Rs.1,15,000/- and not
Rs.1,50,000/- and only suggestion was made that the same
was stolen from the shop of the petitioner and in order to
substantiate the same, no such rebuttal evidence is placed
before the Trial Court.
7. When such being the case, there is no error in the
order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in appreciating
the material available on record and no ground is made out to
interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court and the scope and ambit of revision is limited
and no perversity is found in the findings of the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court. Hence, no grounds to admit the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:328
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
