Karnataka High Court
Sri. Palani vs Sri. H. Vasanthkumar on 13 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1239
CRL.RP No. 1314 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1314 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PALANI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S. SANDYA ENGINEERING WORKS,
NO.35/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAN S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H. VASANTHKUMAR,
S/O. SRI. P.B.HARISH,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M R/AT NO.86, NEAR SRINIVASA
Location: HIGH TOURING TALKIES,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PIPELINE ROAD, K.B.HALLI,
BENGALURU-560 086.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJI KUMAR A., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 03.03.2017 PASSED BY THE XL ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN
C.C.NO.21638/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
11.10.2019 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.458/2017 AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1239
CRL.RP No. 1314 of 2019
DIRECT THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCE
ALLEGED AND CHARGED AGAINST HIM.
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 the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent. In
the previous date of hearing, this Court made it clear that if the
learned counsel for the respondent does not appear on the next
date of hearing, the matter will be heard in his absence.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant
before the Trial Court is that the accused borrowed an amount
of Rs.1,95,000/- as hand loan from the complainant in the
month of February 2012 for the purpose of business and other
family necessities and promised to repay the said amount. The
accused had issued a cheque on 14.03.2013 and when the
cheque was presented, the same was returned with an
endorsement "insufficient funds". The notice was issued to the
accused through the Court by RPAD as well as under certificate
of posting and inspite of notice was served on him, no reply was
given. Thereafter, complaint was filed and cognizance was
NC: 2025:KHC:1239
taken and accused was secured. In order to prove the case of
the complainant, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1
and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. The statement
of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The
accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the
discharge summary as Ex.D.1. The Trial Court having considered
the cheque, notice and also the postal track receipt Ex.P.5
comes to the conclusion that notice was served on the accused
and no reply was given and also though the defence was taken
that the cheque was given to Rajendra, who is the relative of
the accused, he was not examined and not rebutted the
evidence of the complainant and convicted and sentenced him to
pay an amount of Rs.3,90,000/-. Out of that, an amount of
Rs.3,80,000/- is payable to the complainant and Rs.10,000/-
vest with the State.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
in Crl.A.No.458/2017 and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation
of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record found
that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating
the material on record and confirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:1239
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
revision petition is filed before this Court. This Court secured
the records of both the Courts.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that both the Courts lost sight in appreciating the
evidence available on record and not applied its mind in properly
appreciating the material on record. The learned counsel
contend that specific defence was taken that cheque was given
to Rajendra when he was not keeping well and the same was
misused by Rajendra and the complainant and this fact has not
been considered by the Trial Court. The learned counsel
contend that the cheque amount is Rs.1,95,000/- and the Trial
Court awarded fine amount double the amount of the cheque.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also on perusal of the material available on record, in the
cross-examination of D.W.1, he categorically admitted the
signature available on the cheque and the cheque belongs to
him, but only contention was taken that he had given the said
cheque to Rajendra in order to get the materials since he was
suffering from illness and in order to substantiate the same, he
has not examined the said Rajendra and only reason given is
NC: 2025:KHC:1239
that he is not available for examination. When the defence was
taken that he gave the cheque to Rajendra and there was no
any transaction between the complainant and himself, he ought
to have placed the cogent material before the Court. When
there is a clear admission on the part of the petitioner that the
cheque belongs to him and specific defence was taken, ought to
have placed the evidence of preponderance of probabilities and
that has not been done and mere taking of defence is not
enough and ought to have examined Rajendra who is the
relative. The same has been taken note of by the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court while re-appreciating the material available
on record taken note of the said fact into consideration. It is
important to note that when the cheque and the signature is
admitted, the burden shifts on the petitioner to disprove the
case of the complainant and except examining himself and
giving his self style evidence that he gave the cheque to
Rajendra, not examined him and not rebutted the evidence of
the complainant and hence I do not find any error committed by
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court while considering
the material on record. The defence remains as defence and not
placed any preponderance of probabilities to come to other
conclusion. When such being the case and when there is no
NC: 2025:KHC:1239
perversity in the finding of both the Courts, the question of
interfering with the findings of both the Courts by exercising the
revisional jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, I do not find any
material to admit the same.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that
the fine imposed is double the cheque amount. Having taken
note of the transaction is of the year 2013 and almost 11 years
has been elapsed and the Trial Court also having taken note of
the said fact into consideration directed the accused to pay the
said amount. Even if the amount was invested in any
nationalized bank, the amount would be double the amount.
When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by
the Trial Court. No grounds are made out to modify the fine
amount also.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
