Karnataka High Court
Smt. Dhanalakshmi vs Sri. Thammanna K L on 7 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:343
CRL.RP No. 1281 of 2024
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. 1281 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O BASAVARAJU K,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT D.NO.275/5,
4TH CROSS, DURGADEVI ROAD,
NAZARBAD, MYSORE - 570 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. THAMMANNA K.L.
S/O K.S. LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUDALAKUPPE VILLAGE,
K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
Location: HIGH MANDYA-571 807.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
16/04/2022 IN CC NO.709 OF 2020 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SRIRANGAPATNA FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT ACT, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19/07/2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.5023 OF 2022 ON THE FILE
OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA
(SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) WHERE THE APPELLANT COURT
HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CONVICTION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:343
CRL.RP No. 1281 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This Court issued notice to the respondent and the
respondent is served and unrepresented.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court convicting the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act' for short). The cheque
amount is Rs.2,00,000/- which were issued through two
cheques marked as Exs.P1 and P2. The Trial Court sentenced
the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.2,15,000/-. Out of which
Rs.2,10,000/- is payable to the complainant and Rs.5,000/-
shall vest with the State.
3. The Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the
conclusion that there is no rebuttal evidence against the
evidence of the complainant and confirmed the judgment of the
Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:343
4. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that specific defence is taken before the Trial Court
that cheque was given to one Rani and the said Rani filed
complaint through this complainant and both the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court failed to take note of the said fact into
consideration and committed an error.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument
would contend that there was no financial capacity to make the
payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and even specific defence was taken
that there was no source of income to lend the said amount
and also not placed any material before the Court. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
also on perusal of the records which have been received, this
Court has taken note of the evidence available on record. The
complainant, in order to substantiate the case for issuance of
cheque examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The fact that cheques were issued
is not in dispute. But, the only contention is that the cheques
are issued in favour of Rani and not in favour of the
NC: 2025:KHC:343
complainant. The material also discloses that said Rani was not
examined before the Trial Court and though it is the contention
that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
from said Rani, she has repaid the amount and for having
repaid the amount also, no document is placed before the Trial
Court and even not examined herself to substantiate the
defence and not stepped into the witness box. The fact that
notice was also issued and reply was given and complaint also
admitted the issuance of reply, but neither the complainant nor
the petitioner produced the said reply notice before the Trial
Court. The petitioner ought to have taken the very same
defence in the reply notice itself that there is no such
transaction between the complainant and the petitioner and
nothing is placed on record and except taking such a plea, not
led rebuttal evidence before the Trial Court and there is a
statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act that once
cheque has been admitted and issued the same, the petitioner
has to substantiate the defence by placing the material on
record and no cogent material is placed before the Trial Court
to substantiate the defence. Once such defence was taken by
setting up the theory that cheque was given in favour of Rani
NC: 2025:KHC:343
and also taken the contention that amount was repaid to Rani,
the same has to be proved. In the absence of no such rebuttal
evidence before the Court, the question of entertaining revision
does not arise. The scope and ambit of revision is very limited
and this Court can exercise the power under revisional
jurisdiction only if there is perverse finding against the material
on record and no such circumstance is warranted in the case on
hand.
7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
